Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)
Soma Oraon vs Kaila Oraon on 4 January, 2023 cites

Smt. Maina Devi @ Mainabati Bageria And ... vs Mohammed Asagar on 12 May, 1997

9. The learned appellate court has also framed separate issue at paragraph no.8 of the judgment and decided the appeal. The learned appellate court after perusal of Exts.I, B and B/1 found that in Khata No.16, area of land mentioned in column no.14 are not in equal distribution, whereas in column no.17 it has been specifically stated that the land of Khata No.16 are separately hold and possessed by the ancestors of the defendant and appellant. On perusal of Khatian Exts.B and B/1, the learned appellate court found that no land was given to the ancestors of the defendant in another village and considering this aspect of the matter, the learned appellate court has come to the conclusion that there is complete partition amongst the ancestors of the defendant and appellant in the year 1935. The point of recording of Kabjawari, as relied by Mrs. Nivedita Kundu, learned counsel for the appellant has already been answered by the learned appellate court considering Khatian at Ext.1, wherein specific word has not 9 Second Appeal No. 210 of 2004 been mentioned that the Khata remained joint. Thus, the judgment relied by Mrs. Nivedita Kundu in Smt. Maina Devi @ Mainabati Bageria (supra) is not helping the appellant.
Patna High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - P K Deb - Full Document

Smt. Savitri Devi vs Jiwan Chaudhary And Ors. on 13 April, 1960

She also relied upon the judgment passed in Smt. Savitri Devi v. Jiwan Chaudhary and others; (AIR 1960 Patna 548) . By way of relying on this judgment, she submits that where it has not been shown that the family members have been separately assessed to chaukidari tax, chaukidari rent receipts in the names of the individual members are of little value in determining the question of jointless or separation. She took much emphasis by way of submitting that there was no partition and waiver area are in possession of 5 Second Appeal No. 210 of 2004 the respondent/defendant, which has not been considered in right perspective by the learned trial court as well as the appellate court and that is why the law point framed by this Court is required to be answered in favour of the appellant.
Patna High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1