REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

BIRESWAR SEN Appellant

V/S

ASHALATA GHOSE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

WELLES V. MIDDLETON [REFERRED TO]
DIXON V. OLMIUS [REFERRED TO]
HUGUENIN V. BASELEY [REFERRED TO]
HATCH V. HATCH [REFERRED TO]
MONTESQUIEU V. SANDYS [REFERRED TO]
WOOD V. DOWNES [REFERRED TO]
GODDARD V. CARLISLE [REFERRED TO]
CARTER V. PALMER [REFERRED TO]
HUNTER V. ATKINS [REFERRED TO]
WRIGHT V. VANDERPLANK [REFERRED TO]
HOLMAN V. LOYNES [REFERRED TO]
TOMSON V. JUDGE [REFERRED TO]
HYLTON V. HYLTON [REFERRED TO]
WALKER V. SMITH [REFERRED TO]
JOGENDRA KRISHNA ROY V. KURPAL HARSHI AND CO. [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAM V. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [REFERRED TO]
POWELL V. POWELL [REFERRED TO]
SRI SRI GOPAL JEW V. BALDEO NARAIN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
VAUGHTON V. NOBLE [REFERRED TO]
PROOF V. HINES,CAS TEMP TALB 111 [REFERRED TO]
MORLEY V. LOUGHNAN [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: COOMBER,COOMBER V. COOMBER [REFERRED TO]
WRIGHT V. CARTER [REFERRED TO]
RHODES V. BATE [REFERRED TO]
LANCASHIRE LOAND LTD. V. BLACK [REFERRED TO]
MORGAN V. MINETT [REFERRED TO]
HENRY PETER PISANI V. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR GIBRALTAR [REFERRED TO]
LILES V. TERRY [REFERRED TO]
MCPHERSON V. WATT [REFERRED TO]
MITCHELL V. HOMFRAY [REFERRED TO]
INCHE NORIAH V. SHAIKH ALLIE BIN OMAR [REFERRED TO]
NAGENDRABALA DASSI V. DINANATH MAHISH [REFERRED TO]
DAING SOHARAH BINTE DAING TODALEH V. CHABAK BINTE LASALIHO [REFERRED TO]
LADII PANHAD JAISWAL VS. KAROAL DISTILLERY CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
CHILAKAMARTI KOTAIAH VS. ADDANKI VENKATA SUBBAIAH [REFERRED TO]
SITAL CHANDRA KOLLEY VS. HEIRS OF MIHILAL KOLLEY [REFERRED TO]
MOHINI DEBI VS. PURNA SASHI GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
AMRITA LAL BAISYA VS. PRATAP CHAND CHAKRABARTY [REFERRED TO]
TUNGABAI BHRATAR PURUSHOTTAM SHAMJI KUMBHOJKAV VS. YESHVANT DINKAR JOG [REFERRED TO]
MOULVI ALI HOSSAIN MIAN VS. RAJKUMAR HALDAR [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH PRASAD VS. SARJU PRASAD [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the advantage of reading, in advance, the judgment, prepared by my learned brother. I fully agree with him in his conclusion that the appeal should fail and be dismissed and that there should be no order for costs, either here or in the Court below. Bijayesh Mukherji, J.

(2.) The decision of this appeal by Pannalal Sen the unsuccessful plaintiff, in the Court of first instance, turns principally on the question whether the two documents listed below are vitiated by undue influence or not-

(3.) The facts set out in the plaint need not be referred to further than as follows: Late Kanailal Sen bequeathed by will, the immoveable property he had, to his four sons -- Pannalal (the original appellant), Jaharlal, Muktalal, (a name which bulks so large in this litigation), and Bejoylal, The property in suit happens to be the most valuable part of Mukta-lal's share, rendered still more valuable by the addition he had made, with his own funds, of a room and a kitchen. "Of less than average intelligence and almost uneducated", Muktalal "was by habit stingy." He married when he was "past forty", but only to become a widower at 50 or thereabouts. "He cooked his own food." And his was a "style of living" so poor, even though he, a money-lender at that, "earned considerable sums of money" as a draper, and "had a comfortable monthly income" too by letting out three out of the four rooms, in his house -- the house in controversy here. Such a one fell so easy a prey to the "deep-laid plan" of Manmatha, "a wily and veteran lawyer", aided and abetted by Ashalata, "his able wife". The plan worked itself by-and-by in the manner following-

Click here to view full judgment.

BIRESWAR SEN Vs. ASHALATA GHOSE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address