HIMANGSHU KUMAR BASU Vs. SUDHANGSHU KUMAR BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Affidavit -in -Opposition and Affidavit -in -Reply filed in Court today be kept with the record.

(2.) This is application for clarification of the order passed by this Court on 27.11.2003 whereunder the First Miscellaneous Appeal, being 1319 of 1997, was disposed of. Previously verbally and subsequently with the leave of the Court by way of application, Mr. Jayanta Kr. Mitra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that in two places particularly in the 5th and 6th line from the bottom of page 6 and 2nd and 3rd line the bottom of first paragraph of page 9 whereunder it has been recorded that the legacy will pass only upon completion of administration means it will pass in accordance with law. I have already discussed in respect of effectivity of Sec. 141 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Therefore, there is no necessity of incorporation of any further save and except the words "in accordance with law" at the end of the sentence which starts with "yet.........administration" in page 6 of the judgment and the end of the sentence starts with "the dispute...........over" at page 9 of the judgment. Upon verifying the situation on the basis of the argument as advanced by Mr. Mitra as well as Mr. Bagchi, I clarify that the question can be remained open for the future and there is no bar of instituting any suit by Mr. Bagchi's client and if such suit is instituted, the same will not be hit by Order 7 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code. However, even in such suit, parties will be entitled to agitate all points particularly in view of paragraph 15 of the judgment reported in : [2001]2SCR207 , Jayalakshmi Coelho v/s. Oswald Joseph Coelho.

(3.) The application being CAN No. 625/2004 is, thus, disposed of.