REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MAHANTH SUKHDEO DAS Appellant

V/S

KASHI PRASAD TIWARI Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

DEVENDRA NATH SEN V. MIRZA ABDUL SAMED SERAJI [REFERRED TO]
HEERA LAL CHOUDHARY V. JANOKEENATH MOOKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
ASHER V. WHITLOCK [REFERRED TO]
PLUMSTEAD DISTRICT V. SPACKMAN [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUBIR SARAN RASTOGI V. KAVIRAJ BASUDEVANAND [REFERRED TO]
LION INSURANCE ASSOCIATION V. TUCKER [REFERRED TO]
RAM RUP SINGH V. JANG BAHADUR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SHAM DAS V. BATUL BIBI [REFERRED TO]
BYJNATH LALL V. RAMOODEEN CHOWDRY [REFERRED TO]
BENARASI PRASHAD V. MOHIUDDIN AHMAD [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND DUTTA VS. JAGNARAIN DUTTA [REFERRED TO]
NIHAR GANGULI VS. RAI ANATH NATH BASU [REFERRED TO]
SHEO NARAYAN CHAUDHURY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SM GAURI KUMARI DEVI VS. KRISHNA PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
RAMGOBIND SINGH VS. RAMRANBIJAI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BRIJNANDAN SINGH VS. JAMUNA PRASAD SAHU [REFERRED TO]
BABU BADRI SINGH VS. BABU RAM KISHORE PRASAD SINGH [REFERRED TO]
DEONANDAN PRASHAD VS. JANKI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JOTI LAL SAH VS. SHEODHAYAN PRASHAD SAH [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two cases have been referred to the Full Bench and they involve the construction of certain provisions of the Land Reforms Act. It will be more convenient to deal with them separately. Second Appeal No. 634 of 1949

(2.) This second appeal has been brought by the defendants from a judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Monghyr dated the 12th March, 1949, in a suit for partition. The suit has been decreed by both the courts below.

(3.) The plaintiffs sued for partition of certain plots in village Parbatta, Jagir Hasanuddin Nayak, Tauzi No. 1920. These plots are Nos. 247 and 249 of Khata No. 83 having an area of 5 bighas 10 kathas and 18 dhurs, and plot Nos. 246, 248 and 250 of Khata No. 84 having an area of 4 bighas, 17 kathas and 4 dhurs. The plaintiffs claimed to be proprietors to the extent of eight annas in the aforesaid Jagir, and the remaining eight annas belonged to the defendants first party. The land bearing a total area of 10 bighas, 7 kathas and 12 dhurs was alleged to have been in joint possession of the parties. It was further stated by the plaintiffs that on a demand for partition the defendants had refused. Hence the necessity to bring the suit.

Click here to view full judgment.

MAHANTH SUKHDEO DAS Vs. KASHI PRASAD TIWARI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address