https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281744 The High Court of Calcutta allowed the appeal, modifying the judgment to reflect the revised shares of the parties in the disputed property. The court ruled that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 had 1/3rd and 2/3rd shares, respectively, in the property, while recognizing defendant No. 2's right to residence and maintenance from the property income. The judgment emphasized the significance of evidence, legal principles, and equitable considerations in resolving the property ownership and partition dispute. en-us Mon, 24 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Jul 2019 13:15:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281744 The High Court of Calcutta allowed the appeal, modifying the judgment to reflect the revised shares of the parties in the disputed property. The court ruled that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 had 1/3rd and 2/3rd shares, respectively, in the property, while recognizing defendant No. 2's right to residence and maintenance from the property income. The judgment emphasized the significance of evidence, legal principles, and equitable considerations in resolving the property ownership and partition dispute. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 24 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281744