SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 1140

S.B.MAJMUDAR, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY
Meerabhanja – Appellant
Versus
Nirmala Choudhury – Respondent


Advocates:
D.N.MUKHERJI, G.S.CHATTERJEE, N.R.CHAUDHARY, R.MUKHERJI

JUDGMENT

MAJMUDAR, J. :- Special leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties finally in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is being finally disposed of by this judgment.

2. This appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution involves a short question about the review jurisdiction of the High Court in setting aside the earlier decision of the High Court in Second Appeal No.569 of 1973. A few relevant facts leading up to this appeal are required to be noticed at the outset. The appellant is the original plaintiff who had filed a title suit No. 67 of 1970 in the second Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Midnapore in West Bengal. In that suit, the appellant- plaintiff claimed partition and separate possession of two plots, namely , C.S.Plots Nos.73 and 74. Her case was that her husband Dr. Umaprasanna Bhanja and respondent-defendants husband Dr.Phanindra Nath Choudhury were close friends, that by two registered documents they had purchased the aforesaid two plots and that the plaintiff-appellant became entitled to the northern halves of the two plots totalling. 10 decimals. Her case is that the parties dug a well in the middle portio
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top