NITISH CHANDRA Vs. PROMODE KUMAR
LAWS(CAL)-1951-9-3
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 05,1951

NITISH CHANDRA Appellant
VERSUS
PROMODE KUMAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MANIK LAL DUTT VS. PULIN BEHARI PAL [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

HARIDEV SHOURIE VS. MADAN MOHAN [LAWS(DLH)-1979-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
MANUEL JOSEPH VS. THRESSY GEORGE [LAWS(KER)-1966-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
BIJOY KANUNGO VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1992-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
BIMAL CHANDRA BEHARA VS. SASADHAR GHOSH [LAWS(CAL)-1994-6-18] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHENDU BIKASH ADDY VS. BIPIN BEHARI ADDY [LAWS(CAL)-2001-7-45] [REFERRED TO]
TAHERBHAI ABDULALLI VS. NAGINDAS GOKULDAS SARAF [LAWS(BOM)-1978-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAM GOPAL VS. BHIKAM CHAND [LAWS(RAJ)-1963-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
KALIPADA ASH VS. TAGAR BALA DASI [LAWS(PAT)-1967-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
GANGA SINGH VS. LRS OF CHHOTU SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
PRASANTA SAHA AND ORS. VS. SUSANTA KUMAR SAHA AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-3-82] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNADHONE CHATTERJEE VS. AJIT KUMAR MITRA [LAWS(CAL)-1976-9-35] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Lahiri, J. - (1.)This is an appeal by plaintiffs 1 and 2 in a suit for partition, and it is directed against an order, dated 8th July 1950, made by Sri P.N. Lahiri, Subordinate Judge, First Court, 24 Parganas, refusing the application of plaintiffs 1 and 2 under Section 3, Partition Act (Act no. 4 of 1893).
(2.)The subject-matter of dispute is premises no. 25A, Harish Mukherjee Road, which is the dwelling house of the parties. A preliminary decree was passed on. 25th January 1949, holding that plaintiffs l, 2 and 3, and defendants l, 2 and 6 had one-seventh share each in the dwelling house, and defendants 3, 4 and 5 jointly had , one-seventh share.
(3.)After the passing of the preliminary decree, the Court appointed a Commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining whether the dwelling house could be partitioned amongst the seven co-sharers. The Commissioner submitted a report stating that it was not possible to divide the dwelling house by metes and bounds into seven allotments. Some of the co-sharers' agreed to take a joint allotment before the Commissioner but two of them subsequently resiled from that position.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.