Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)
Nitish Chandra And Anr. vs Promode Kumar And Ors. on 5 September, 1951 cites

Manik Lal Dutt And Ors. vs Pulin Behari Pal And Ors. on 28 April, 1950

15. The view as to the scope of Section 3, Partition Act which we have taken is justified by the decision of this Court given by my learned brother Mookerjee J. in Manik Lal v. Pulin Behari, , where after a review of the decisions of this and other High Courts and the different sections of the Partition Act, my learned brother came to the conclusion that the provisions of Sections 2, 3 and 4, Partition Act should be liberally construed, and it was definitely held in that case that there is no reason why before the sale actually takes place under Section 2, Partition Act, it will not be open to the co-sharers to exercise the option which is given to them under Section 3 of the Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Angamuthu Mudaliar vs Ratna Mudaliar And Ors. on 23 March, 1925

14. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Madras High Court in Angamutku Mudaliar v. Ratna Mudaliar, 48 Mad. 920, where it has been held that the proper time to apply under Section 3 is after the request has been made by co-sharers owning a moiety share or upwards that the property should be sold under Section 2, and "before a Court makes an order under Section 2." In our opinion, this decision proceeds upon a narrow construction of Section 3. The words, "before a Court makes an order under Section 2," are not to be found in Section 3. All that Section 3 requires is that the application should be filed after a request has been made by the co-sharers under Section 2 of the Act. In the absence of any restrictive provision in Section 3, we are unable to hold that the limiting point of time when the application should be made under that section is the date on which the order under Section 2 is made. We are accordingly unable to accept the view of the Madras High Court as to the scope of Section 3, Partition Act.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Bhuban Mohan Guha And Anr. vs Brojendra Chandra Ghose And Ors. on 31 July, 1940

In support of this proposition, Mr. Gupta has relied upon the decision in Bhuban Mohan v. Brojendra Chandra, 45 cal. w. N. 74, where a Division Bench of this Court has held that there is nothing in Section 8, Partition Act, to indicate that an order rejecting an application for sale should be deemed to be a decree. Although this was a case under Section 4, Partition Act, we think that the reasons given by the learned Judge apply with equal force to the case of an order rejecting an application under Section 3, Partition Act. We accordingly uphold the preliminary objection and hold that the appeal is not maintainable.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1