Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.32 seconds)
Raghunath Das vs Gokal Chand And Another on 1 May, 1958 cites

Gopal Chandra Dutt vs Surendra Nath Dutt on 5 June, 1924

That is not the position here. It should be remembered that the two brothers were entitled to the G. P. Notes of the value of Rs. 26,500 originally as joint coparceners and thereafter, when the decree upon the award had been passed, as tenants- in-common. Until actual partition by consent of the parties or by court Gokul Chand, who held the custody of the G. P. Notes, could not be said to have taken them wrongfully from Raghunath Das and his possession of them could not be said to be or to have become unlawful. These considerations clearly distinguish this case from the case of Gopal Chandra Bose v. Surendra Nath Dutt (1) on which the High Court relied because in that case the defendant had no right to or interest in the G. P. Notes in question and had no right to retain possession thereof. Therefore, to the present situation the terminus a quo specified in the third column of Art. 49 can have no application. It is now well established that a suit by an heir against other heirs to recover his share of the moveable estate of a deceased person is not one for (1) (1908) XII C. W. N. 1010 818 specific moveable property wrongfully taken such as is contemplated by Art 49, but is governed by Art. 120.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1