SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(Cal) 281

High Court Of Calcutta
ANIL KUMAR SEN, S. N. SANYAL
BHOLANATH KARMAKAR - Appellant
Versus
SAILENDRA NATH PRAMANIK - Respondent
A. F. A. D.  19  Of  1981
Decided On : 09/29/1983

Advocates Appeared:
A.N.BANERJI, AMIT ROY, MOTILAL AGARWALLA, S.P.ROYCHOWDHURY

Section 4 of the Partition Act should be liberally construed to promote and fulfil its object of securing indivisibility of a dwelling house.

Headnote:

PARTITION ACT - SECTION 4 - PRE-EMPTION - STRANGER PURCHASER - APPLICATION FOR PARTITION - CONSTRUCTION - LIBERAL INTERPRETATION - DWELLING HOUSE - FAMILY DWELLING HOUSE - ABANDONMENT - PARTITION - VALUATION.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, a co-sharer of a family dwelling house, filed a suit for partition and pre-emption under Section 4 of the Partition Act against the defendant, a stranger purchaser of a share in the dwelling house. The defendant contested the suit, claiming that there was a previous partition and that the dwelling house had ceased to be the family dwelling house. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for pre-emption, but the appellate court reversed the decision and decreed the claim.

Finding of the Court:

The appellate court found that the defendant was a stranger purchaser, that the suit property was the dwelling house of the plaintiff and his co-sharers, and that it continued to remain as such even after the death of the plaintiff's father. The court also found that the plaintiff and his brothers were living at Puri for the time being for carrying on their profession in gold-smithy, but there was no indication that the plaintiff or the co-sharers ever abandoned the dwelling house altogether or gave up the intention of using it as such.

Issues: 1. Whether a stranger purchaser must sue for partition or claim partition on separate allotment in order to attract Section 4 of the Partition Act? 2. Whether the suit property ceased to remain the family dwelling house of the plaintiff? 3. Whether there is evidence to indicate that the two Plots, Dag Nos. 2010 and 2012 really constitute a part of the dwelling house? 4. Whether the defendant's application had been wrongly treated as an application under Section 2 of the Partition Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 4 of the Partition Act should be liberally construed to promote and fulfil its object of securing indivisibility of a dwelling house. A stranger purchaser who is entitled to a share in the family dwelling house by virtue of his purchase is liable to be pre-empted under Section 4, irrespective of whether he sues for partition or claims separate allotment. 2. The mere fact that the co-sharers had migrated to another place for the purpose of carrying on their profession does not mean that the dwelling house ceased to be the family dwelling house, as long as they intended to maintain it as such. 3. The evidence on record supported the finding that the two Plots, Dag Nos. 2010 and 2012, constituted a part of the dwelling house. 4. The defendant's application, in which he claimed the right to purchase the plaintiff's share by virtue of his position as the major shareholder, could not be treated as an application under Section 2 of the Partition Act, as it did not ask for any open sale.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the appellate court was upheld. The plaintiff was entitled to pre-empt the defendant's share in the dwelling house under Section 4 of the Partition Act on deposit of a sum of Rs. 4,545.00, which was the valuation of the defendant's share as determined by the court.

ANIL K. SEN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from an appellate decree. The subject matter of challenge is the judgment and decree dated June 19, 1978, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Midnapore in Title Appeal No. 300 of 1975 reversing those dated Aug. 2. 1975, passed by the learned Munsif. Ghatal in Title. Suit No. 125 of 1972. That was a suit for partition and the defendant is the appellant before this court. The only question which has been agitated in this appeal before us is "as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim pre-emption under Section 4 of the Partition Act when the stranger purchaser has neither sued for partition nor has prayed for partition and separate allotment of the share purchased by him.

( 2 ) THE suit property consists of three plots being Dag Nos. 2010, 2011 of Khatian No. 676 and Dag No. 2012 of Khatian No. 897 of Mouza Kharar set out in Schedules Ka and Kha to the plaint. On the settlement records all those plots are non-agricultural in nature and while plot No. 2011 is the bastu or homestead plots Nos. 2010 and 2012 ore patit or waste and adjoining the said bastu. The suit property admittedly was inherited by three brothers Ram Tarak. Rammoy and Shyamacharan from their father Churamoni. On the concurrent findings of the two courts below while plaintiff, Sailendra one of three sons of Rammoy had inherited 1/9th share in the suit land and l/3rd share in the structures (Schedule Ga) built by his father Rammoy, the defendant, who is a stranger to the family of the plaintiff has by purchase acquired the balance 8/9 share in the suit land and 2/3 share in the structures. This has been: found concurrently by the two courts below and that has not been challenged before us in this second appeal.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff his father Rammoy and uncle Shyamacharan had to leave their original homestead and they built a mud-walled house on Dag No. 2011 about 40 years back and lived there. Later Shyamacharan left the place and settled in Calcutta. When that mud-walled house fell down plaintiff's father Rammoy built a two roomed housed on the said plot, lived there and died and after his death, plaintiff and his brothers continued to live there until they for their professional work viz. , goldsmithy went over to Puri, Plaintiff's case further was that he went over to Puri about 5 years prior to the suit. The plain-tiff claimed the house situate on plot No. 2011 to be the family dwelling house and the other two Plots constitute a part thereof, since the other co-sharers sold off their share to the defendant, the defendant took possession thereof and enclosed the entire area by a boundary wall built by him. Hence the plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of his title as a co-sharer and partition along with a prayer for pre-emption under Section 4 of the Partition Act.

( 4 ) THE defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement. He claimed that there was previous partition between the co-sharer (which the defendant failed to substantiate at the trial) and what he purchased was the separated portion and not a share in the undivided dwelling house. It was further pleaded that the dwelling house ceased to be the family dwelling house since the plaintiff abandoned the same 40 years back and began to stay in his father-in-law's house as a permanent member of that family. The defendant on such grounds challenged the plaintiffs claim for pre-emption.

( 5 ) ON the pleadings as aforesaid several issues were raised including an issue as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to claim right of pre-emption under Section 4 of the Partition Act.

( 6 ) THE learned Munsif decided the aforesaid issue against the plaintiff. But in doing so it has been rightly pointed out by the court of appeal below he failed to arrive at any firm or clear finding as to the ground for doing so. The principal reason assigned by the learned Munsif was that when the plaintiff left the dwelling house being a Ghar Jama














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top