DHIRENDRA NATH SADHUKHAN Vs. TINKARI SADHUKHAN
LAWS(CAL)-1983-9-5
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 30,1983

DHIRENDRA NATH SADHUKHAN Appellant
VERSUS
TINKARI SADHUKHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Chaudhuri, J. - (1.) One Kiron Bala Dassi was the owner of the property in question namely, a dwelling house in 107, Panchanantala Road, P. S. Bally. She sold the undivided eastern half of the house by a Kobala to Uttam and Amulya Sadhukhan. By a second Kobala she sold the western half of the said house to aforesaid Amulya and his wife's brother Sudhanya Sadhukhan. Subsequently Uttam sold his share in the property to Amulya who has since died. Sudhanya has sold his share in the property to the appellant.
(2.) Respondents, as heirs of Amulya, brought a suit for partition and a decree in preliminary form has been passed declaring their 12 annas share and appellants 4 annas share in the suit property, overruling the appellants plea of previous partition. Subsequent thereto respondents filed a petition under section 4 of the partition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for purchasing the share of the appellant on the footing that he was a stranger-purchaser in relation to the dwelling house which belonged to undivided family. The learned court below has allowed the said petition dismissing appellants contention that Amulya and Subhanya did not constitute an 'undivided family' in relation to the house and the prayer of the respondents did not comply with the requirements of the said section. So the defendant opposite party in the proceedings under section 4 of the Act has come up in appeal.
(3.) There is no dispute that the property is a dwelling house. The learned court below has held that the term 'family' used in section 4 of the Act, according to judicial decisions cited by him, should be liberally construed and on such liberal construction he has held Amulya and Sudhanya to be constituting an undivided family.;


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