HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. Chatterjee, A. C. Gupta
MANICK LAL SINGH - Appellant
Versus
GOURI SHANKAR SHAH - Respondent
A. F. A. D. 1172 Of 1962
Decided On : MAY 23, 1967
PARTITION ACT - SECTION 4 - DWELLING HOUSE - INTERPRETATION - EQUITIES IN PARTITION - SEVERANCE OF PORTION NOT USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE - SALE OF REMAINING PORTION - ALLOTMENT OF SEVERED PORTION - FAMILY MEMBERS - UNDIVIDED FAMILY - DETERMINATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a purchaser from one of the co-sharers, filed a suit for partition claiming one half share in the disputed property. The defendant applied for relief under Section 4 of the Partition Act, claiming the property was a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family transferred to a non-family member. The trial court allowed the application, and the appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the property consisted of two structures, 'a' and 'b'. Block 'b' was used for residential purposes by the defendant and his brother, while block 'a' was let out to tenants and was not necessary for the convenient occupation of block 'b'. The court found that block 'b' was a dwelling house within the meaning of Section 4 of the Partition Act, while block 'a' was not.
Issues: 1. Whether the entire property was a dwelling house within the meaning of Section 4 of the Partition Act. 2. Whether the brothers were members of an undivided family.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the term 'dwelling house' in Section 4 of the Partition Act to include the portion of the structure actually used for residential purposes, together with appurtenants such as courtyards, kitchens, cowsheds, or garages used by the family members as part of their residential house. 2. The court held that the family members must have used the house for residential purposes, and that the house must include all appurtenants and structures used by the family as part of their residential house. 3. The court considered the equities in partition, including the convenience of partition and the value of the land, in determining whether to sever a portion of the property from the dwelling house.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part, directing that the disputed property, less block 'a' and a portion of the outer courtyard, be sold in terms of Section 4 of the Partition Act. The court suggested that block 'a' be partitioned between the parties, with the northern portion allotted to the co-sharer who purchases block 'b' and the rest allotted to the plaintiff.
( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal from the decision of the subordinate judge, Alipore in a suit for partition. The plaintiff is a purchaser from one of the co-sharers, a brother of the defendant. The plaintiff instituted the suit for partition claiming one half share in the disputed property. The defendant filed a petition under Section 4 of the Partition Act and applied for a relief under that section on the ground that the property was a dwelling house. It belonged to an undivided family and it has been transferred to a person who is not a member of such family. The application under Section 4 was allowed by the trial court; against that there was an appeal and the appeal has been dismissed. The appeal to this Court is against the decision of the appellate court At an earlier stage of the proceeding we sent the matter to the court below for enquiry as to whether whole of the property was a dwelling house or not and whether the portion which has been in use and occupation of the tenant is a separate and distinct portion from that which has been used for the purpose of residence of the members of the family. The second point for which the matter was sent to the Court below was to find out whether the two brothers were the members of an undivided family or not.
( 2 ) AFTER taking evidence the trial court reported in favour of the defendant on both the points. The first point urged by Mr. Monomohan Mukherjee, on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, is as there was a previous partition, the present application is not maintainable. It is enough to say that the plaintiff himself filed the partition suit on the allegation that the property was not partitioned and the plaintiff now wants to say that there was a previous partition. The plaintiff cannot be heard to say so. The defendant again at the time of the argument in the trial court admitted that the suit property was not partitioned before and that each of the members of the family had eight annas share. This point must, therefore, require no further consideration and the point is overruled.
( 3 ) WE now come to the real question as to whether the petition under Section 4 of the Partition Act should be allowed. Section 4 (1) of the Partition Act is as follows:"where a share of a dwelling-house belonging to an undivided family has been transferred to a person who is not a member of such family and such transferee sues for partition, the Court shall, if any member of the family being a share-holder shall undertake to buy the share of such transferee, make a valuation of such share in such manner as it thinks fit and direct the sale of such share to such share-holder and may give all necessary and proper directions in that behalf. "
( 4 ) WE have first to see whether the whole of the property in question is a dwelling house within the meaning of the Act or not. A plan has been prepared and that shows that there are two structures on the plot or land marked 'a' and 'b'. The evidence of the defendant who has applied under Section 4 of the Partition Act is that he and his brother used to reside in two rooms in block 'b'. It is also clear from his evidence that block 'a' was never used by the members of the family for dwelling purpose. It was all along let out to tenants. There was a case that there was an amicable arrangement by which the plaintiff's vendor realised rent with regard to block 'a' and the defendant resided in block 'b' and also let out portion of it to tenants and realised rent with respect to that. The plaintiffs vendor in his kobala has also stated that he was in possession of block 'a' by letting out to tenants. Therefore, it is the statement of both the members of the family that block 'a' was not used for dwelling purposes and was always let out to the tenants. Block 'a' is not necessary for the convenience of dwelling in block 'b', it is not and was not used by the members of the family for dwelling or allied purposes. The meaning of the word 'dwell
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.