Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.36 seconds)Section 2 in The Partition Act, 1893 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Partition Act, 1893 [Entire Act]
Nitish Chandra And Anr. vs Promode Kumar And Ors. on 5 September, 1951
However, that decision was followed by a Division Bench consisting of Rule P. Mookerjee and Lahiri, JJ. in Nitish Chandra v. Promode Kumar, , where they have expressly dissented from the decision in Angamuthu Mudaliar's case. They laid down that an application under Section 3 could be made at any time after the request is made under Section 2 and before a sale has actually been held under Section 2.
Section 7 in The Partition Act, 1893 [Entire Act]
Manik Lal Dutt And Ors. vs Pulin Behari Pal And Ors. on 28 April, 1950
15. The above view of the interpretation of Section 3 is supported by the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Manik Lal v. Pulin Behari, , where Rule P. Mookerjee, J. has fully reviewed all the previous authorities but where the aforesaid decision of the Madras High Court in Angamuthu Mudaliar's case (AIR 1925 Mad 1234) does not appear to have been considered.
P.J.S. Jayarama Chettiar vs D. Annamalai Chettiar on 15 July, 1971
16. The above view has been accepted by Kailasam, J., as he then was, in P. J. Section Jayarama Chettiar v. D. Annamalai Chettiar, ILR (1966) 2 Mad 530, and by a single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in Baldeo Das v. Kishanlal .
Baldeo Das And Ors. vs Kishanlal And Anr. on 16 July, 1969
16. The above view has been accepted by Kailasam, J., as he then was, in P. J. Section Jayarama Chettiar v. D. Annamalai Chettiar, ILR (1966) 2 Mad 530, and by a single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in Baldeo Das v. Kishanlal .
1