Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction in Ganeriwala HUF Property Dispute, Cites Prima Facie Fraud

Kolkata , West Bengal – The Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling, has dismissed an appeal challenging a temporary injunction related to a complex family property dispute involving the Biswanath Ganeriwala Hindu Undivided Family ( BHUF ). The division bench, comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar , affirmed the Alipore trial court's order, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud and misrepresentation in the execution of partition and declaration deeds concerning HUF properties.

The appeal (F.M.A.T. No. 42 of 2025) was filed by Pradip Kumar Ganeriwala (defendant no.2 in the suit) against Rohan Ganeriwala (plaintiff/respondent no.1) and others. The core of the dispute revolves around a Deed of Partition and Settlement dated December 2, 2008, and a Deed of Declaration dated June 1, 2009, which Rohan Ganeriwala seeks to have declared void.

Case Background: Allegations of Exclusion and Fraud

Rohan Ganeriwala , a coparcener in the BHUF , filed a suit contending that the 2008 Partition Deed and the 2009 Declaration Deed were executed fraudulently. He alleged that despite attaining majority on March 12, 2006, he was excluded from these deeds, which were executed in 2008 and 2009. The deeds allegedly gave the impression that his interests were represented by his father, Dilip Kumar Ganeriwala (defendant no.4), by falsely portraying Rohan as a minor at the time. The plaintiff claims this was a fraudulent act perpetrated by his uncle, Pradip Kumar Ganeriwala (the appellant), and his father.

The properties in question include a Mumbai property (Schedule A), bank accounts in the name of BHUF (Schedule B), and demat accounts of BHUF (Schedule C). Rohan Ganeriwala stated he became aware of these deeds only in late 2023.

Appellant's Contentions

Pradip Kumar Ganeriwala , the appellant, challenged the temporary injunction on several grounds:

* Lack of Notice under Section 80 CPC : Argued the suit was barred for non-service of notice to the Additional District Sub-Registrar (ADSR), Alipore.

* Limitation : Claimed the suit was time-barred, alleging the plaintiff had earlier knowledge of the deeds, evidenced by a letter dated July 6, 2023, to the ADSR.

* Territorial Jurisdiction : Contended the Alipore Court lacked jurisdiction, especially concerning the Mumbai property, and as the Deed of Declaration was notarized in Calcutta, outside Alipore's purview.

* Suppression of Material Facts : Accused the plaintiff of suppressing his 2023 letter and a 1998 family arrangement under which Pradip became Karta and managed the Mumbai property. He cited Kale and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation on the binding nature of family settlements.

* Mumbai Property Title : Stated the Mumbai property was registered in his name via a registered Indenture dated July 7, 2009.

Respondent's Rebuttals

Rohan Ganeriwala , represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, countered:

* Territorial Jurisdiction : Argued the suit, challenging deeds, falls under Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) as defendants reside within Alipore Court's jurisdiction. Alternatively, part of the HUF property is in Alipore.

* Limitation : Maintained the suit was within the limitation period from the date of knowledge (July/December 2023), as he was not a signatory to the deeds.

* Section 80 CPC : Stated it was inapplicable as no relief was sought against the ADSR, a proforma defendant.

* No Suppression : Asserted that the non-disclosure of the July 6, 2023 letter was not material, and there was no proof the impugned deeds were acted upon. He emphasized he was not party to any prior family arrangement and that BHUF was not dissolved.

* Flawed Indenture : Argued the 2009 Indenture for the Mumbai property was invalid as Sanchaita Investment (the seller) had already transferred title to BHUF via a Court Sale Certificate and thus had no title left to convey.

High Court's Detailed Findings

The High Court meticulously addressed each contention:

On Section 80 CPC

The Court found that since no relief was claimed against the ADSR (proforma defendant no. 25), who was merely a 'proper' party and not a 'necessary' party, the requirement of prior notice under Section 80 CPC was not attracted.

On Territorial Jurisdiction

The bench prima facie agreed with the plaintiff: > "Thus, strictly speaking, the principal relief sought in the suit does not pertain directly to immovable properties; rather, the same comes within the residuary provision of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, to determine the jurisdiction, we are to look at the residence of the defendants, most of whom reside within the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court."

The Court noted the Partition Deed was executed within the trial court's jurisdiction. Regarding the Mumbai property, the Court observed that Clause 16 of the Partition Deed itself brought the property within its ambit by allotting it to Pradip Ganeriwala (HUF) and extinguishing others' claims. Therefore, the Alipore court prima facie had jurisdiction.

On Limitation

The Court held that the suit, filed in 2024, was well within the statutory period of limitation, whether knowledge was acquired in July or December 2023. > "That the plaintiff/respondent no.1 had not yet gone through the contents of the deed on that date [July 6, 2023], is evident from the statement in the letter that he was a signatory thereto. Such statement, being patently contrary to the partition deed itself...must be construed to be a clear indicator that on the date of writing the letter...the actual contents of the disputed partition deed were not within the knowledge of the plaintiff."

On Suppression of Material Facts

The Court found no material suppression. The non-disclosure of the July 6, 2023 letter was deemed not germane. The fact that the plaintiff's father was a signatory did not bind the plaintiff, who was a major at the time and alleged fraud. > "At the relevant point of time, the plaintiff was a major...Thus, in any event, his father could not have represented his estate on the dates when the impugned deeds were executed."

On Merits for Temporary Injunction

The Court found a strong prima facie case of fraud and misrepresentation.

* Mumbai Property Ownership : BHUF became the absolute owner of the Mumbai property via a Sale Certificate issued pursuant to a court sale.

* Flawed Subsequent Deeds : The subsequent 1998 Affidavit and the impugned 2008 Partition Deed and 2009 Deed of Declaration, which sought to alter rights over BHUF properties (including the Mumbai property), were executed without the involvement of all coparceners, including Rohan Ganeriwala , who was a major.

* Misrepresentation of Plaintiff's Age : The Court noted: "The parties therein went so far as to mention the plaintiff as “Master Rohan Ganeriwala ” thereby giving an impression that he was a minor who was represented by his father...although he had already attained majority then. On the basis of the facts which are before the court, prima facie such statement was a gross misrepresentation of the actual facts and accordingly, a strong prima facie case of fraud and misrepresentation has been made out..."

* Invalid Indenture : The 2009 Indenture for the Mumbai property in favour of the appellant was deemed ineffective, as Sanchaita Investment had already been divested of title. " Sanchaita Investment , the transferor, had already been divested of title in the property and the said Deed of Indenture could not operate to convey or transfer any title whatsoever..."

The Court distinguished Kale ’s Case , stating the family arrangement relied upon by the appellant was "tainted by the non-joinder of all coparceners of BHUF as well as vitiated by fraud insofar as the plaintiff was made out to be a minor."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed Pradip Kumar Ganeriwala 's appeal (FMAT No. 42 of 2025) and the connected application (CAN 1 of 2025), thereby affirming the Alipore Court's order of temporary injunction dated January 27, 2025.

The Court clarified: > "It is made clear that the merits of the issues involved in the suit have not been entered into by this Court, and the above findings are tentative in nature, confined to the adjudication of the appeal against the temporary order of injunction, and shall not be binding on the learned Trial Judge at the stage of final hearing of the suit."

This decision means the temporary injunction restraining the defendants from relying on the disputed deeds or dealing with the scheduled properties will continue. The suit will now proceed to a full trial on its merits at the Alipore Court. The judgment underscores the critical importance of ensuring all major coparceners are duly represented in any dealings with HUF property and the severe repercussions of fraudulent misrepresentations in such transactions.