Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.54 seconds)
Documents citing Srilekha Ghosh (Roy) & Anr vs Partha Sarathi Ghosh on 9 July, 2002

Sunil Gupta vs Nargis Khanna on 6 September, 2011

6. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has resisted the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC on the ground that facts of this case required trial inasmuch as it has to be decided whether the plaintiff is a part of the undivided family being a married daughter. This opposition does not need trial. The decision in the matter Sulekha Ghosh & Anr. Vs. Partha Sarathi Gosh reported in AIR 2002 SC 2500 settles this issue. A daughter after marriage does not lose the status of a member of an undivided family of her father and acquires in interest in the dwelling house.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 7 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Moloy Kumar Ghosh & Others vs Samarendra Kumar Ghosh on 19 June, 2012

This view was followed in subsequent cases also namely Babulal vs. Haabiboor Rahaman as reported in AIR 2000 SC page 2684, Goutam Pal vs. Debi Ram Pal AIR 2001 SC 61, Srilekha Ghosh vs. Partha Sarathi Ghosh AIR 2002 SC page 2500 and Gyan Chand vs. Sumar Rani AIR 2002 SC 2434. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the applicability of the claim of pre-emption under Section 4 of the Partition Act by laying down the following principles:-
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - T K Gupta - Full Document

Rishabh Kumar Jain vs Gyanchand Jain on 12 February, 2019

13. Section 4 of the Partition Act was interpreted in Srilekha Ghosh vs. Partha Sarathi Ghosh2, after referring to earlier judgments of different High Courts, to mean that the dwelling house must belong to an undivided family and the transfer must be to a person who is not a member of such family to whom the dwelling house belongs. Reference was made to Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act to observe that Section 4 of the Partition Act does not provide the co-sharer right to pre-empt where the stranger/outsider does nothing
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R Gogoi - Full Document

Sanatan Sahu (Dead) After Him His L.Rs. ... vs Naran Behera And Ors. on 14 March, 2003

2000 SC 2684; Gautam Paul v. Debi Rani Paul and Ors., AIR 2001 SC61; and Srilekha Ghosh (Roy) and Anr. v. Partha Sarathi Ghosh, AIR 2002 SC 2500. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents while not disputing, to the correctness of the ratio propounded by the Apex Court in the above cited decisions, however, argues that plaintiffs' interest be protected under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act. In that respect learned counsel for the appellants replies that since the suit land is not a house and only a homestead land and that to such property is in their possession, therefore the provision under Section 44 of the T.P. Act may not be invokable at this stage.
Orissa High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - P K Tripathy - Full Document

The Sangli Bank Ltd. By Its Pa Holder - Mr. ... vs Smt. Sudha W/O Shankarrao Kalkundri And ... on 2 August, 2006

In the decision in Srilekha Ghosh's case cited supra relied upon by the respondent, the Apex Court has, referring to the decision in Babulal v. Habibnoar Khan , held that one of the basic conditions for applicability of Section 4 as laid down by the aforesaid decision and also as expressly mentioned in the section is that, stranger transferee must seek for partition and separate possession of the undivided share transferred to him by the co-owner concerned. It is stated further that it is true in the said decision it was observed that even though the stranger transferee on such undivided interest moves an execution application for separating his share by metes and bounds, it would be treated to be an application for suing for partition and it is not necessary that a separate suit should be filed by such stranger transferee. On this decision the learned Counsel for respondent has laid emphasis and submitted that in view of the prayer sought for by the appellant-bank, it is as good as a prayer sought in the usual course in a suit for partition, as such, it would tantamount to initiating or moving the court seeking for granting his prayer, as a party in a partition suit can be transposed either as a plaintiff or defendant. In that view of the matter, the prayer sought for by the bank should be treated as if it has moved for an execution petition seeking for a separate share and Section 4 has to be invoked allowing the other co-sharers to exercise their right of preemption.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Ashfaq Ahmed vs Sh. Shiv Prasad (Deceased) on 26 October, 2012

37. It is also held in Srilekha Ghosh(Roy) & Anr. Vs. Partha Sarthi Ghosh 2002 (6) SCC 359 that "Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that the transferee of a share of a dwelling house, if he/she is not a member of that family, gets no right to joint possession or common enjoyment of the house. Section 44 adequately protects the family members Suit No. 94/1994 Page 23 of 25 against intrusion by an outsider into the dwelling house. The only manner in which an outsider can get possession is to sue for possession and claim separation of his share. In that case, Section 4 of the Partition Act comes into play."
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1