Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.33 seconds)

Sri Shyam Kumar Panja & Anr vs Lakhiniwas Chittlangia on 11 September, 2019

The ratio decided in the case of Lekjan Bibi (supra) and Manoj (supra) are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. We are of the view that the plaintiffs have a prima facie case to go for trial. The balance of convenience and inconvenience is in favour of the plaintiff/appellant herein and the plaintiff/appellant will suffer irreparable loss and injury unless an order of injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from changing the nature and character of the suit property is passed. The impugned order thus suffers from infirmity and the same is set aside. The defendants/respondents are restrained by an order of injunction from changing the nature and character of the suit property till the disposal of the suit. The appeal is thus allowed.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - H Bhattacharya - Full Document

Sri Dilip Shaw vs Sri Madan Prosad Shaw on 25 January, 2021

In support of such submissions, reference to a decision in the case of Shaym Kumar Panja & Anr. Vs. Lakhiniwas Chittiangia reported in (2020) 1 Cal LT 166 has been referred and my attention has 3 been drawn to the order of the Division Bench in paragraphs 20, 21, 22 and 23 so also in paragraph 9 wherein decision in the case of Lekjan Bibi vs. Idris Ali reported in 2015 SCC Online Cal 2559 and also in the case of Manoj Kumar Mondal vs. Saroj Kumar Mondal in FMAT 992 of 2018 with CAN 7787 of 2018 has been addressed to the observations that so long as the property remains joint, no share-holder has right to change the nature and character of the suit property and that any attempt to diminish the value of the joint property should not be permitted until the partition suit be finally decided by a final decree.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document
1