Chattisgarh High Court
Krishna Kumar @ Ramkrishna vs Santosh Kumar on 22 March, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
SA No 445 of 2019
Krishna Kumar @ Ramkrishna Versus Santosh and others
7-3
22-3-2022 Mr. H.V. Sharma, counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, counsel for the respondents No. 1
to 14.
Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No.15.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the defendants in their written statement have categorically pleaded that the alleged partition has been done with intention, fraud and forgery, therefore, he should take rectification on instrument by the provisions under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act. He would further submit that the trial court has wrongly relied upon the fact that the mother and sister have not participated in partition, therefore, it cannot be termed as full family partition.
When this court posed a specific query to learned counsel for the appellant as to whether the provisions under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, can be applied to the case in hand, he would submit that he may be given two weeks' time to make his submission.
List this case after two weeks.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Raju