High Court Of Calcutta
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA
HARENDRA NATH GHOSH - Appellant
Versus
SUBODH KUMAR GHOSH - Respondent
S. A. 220 Of 1988
Decided On : 02/17/2000
PARTITION SUIT - JOINT PROPERTY - CONSTRUCTION BY CO-SHARER - CONSENT - IMPLIED CONSENT - DOCTRINE OF BLENDING - TITLE TO PROPERTY - IMPROVEMENT - APPORTIONMENT OF LAND AND STRUCTURE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1, brothers, were allotted a piece of land jointly by the State of West Bengal. Plaintiff filed a suit for partition, claiming half share in the disputed property, including a two-storied pucca building constructed thereon. Defendant No. 1 contested the suit, asserting absolute ownership over the structure and claiming that he had constructed it at his own cost with the plaintiff's knowledge and consent.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decreed the suit in preliminary form, declaring the plaintiff's half share in the disputed property, including the structure. The first appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court set aside the first appellate court's judgment and remanded the case back for rehearing.
Issues: (A) Whether the plaintiff can argue any other point than the two questions mentioned by the Apex Court in paragraph 2 of the judgment? (B) Whether the first appellate court erred in not applying the proper tests to determine the ownership of the disputed structure? (C) Whether the defendant can claim absolute ownership of the building constructed on the joint property in the absence of specific finding that the plaintiff has been ousted? (D) Assuming the plaintiff fails to prove contribution towards construction, can he claim half share in the building based on the defendant's knowledge of joint ownership and lack of objection?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The plaintiff is entitled to argue all points available under law, as the Supreme Court directed rehearing of the appeal on all possible questions within the framework of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The first appellate court did not err in applying the proper tests to determine the ownership of the disputed structure. 3. The defendant cannot claim absolute ownership of the building constructed on the joint property in the absence of specific finding that the plaintiff has been ousted. 4. Even if the plaintiff fails to prove contribution towards construction, he cannot claim half share in the building simply because the defendant made development without objection, as the defendant constructed the building within his half share of the land with the plaintiff's implied consent.
Final Decision: The appeal is disposed of with a modification to the decree passed by the first appellate court. The plaintiff is declared to have half share in the 2 kotthas of land allotted to the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, while the pucca two-storied building is allotted in favor of the defendant No. 1. The remaining half portion of the land is allotted to the plaintiff. The partition will not be binding upon the State if it violates any terms of the license.
( 1 ) THIS second appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for partition and is directed against the judgment and decree dated January 3, 1984 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 8th Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 654 of 1982 thereby affirming those dated May 29, 1982 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 32 of 1980 renumbered as Title Suit No. 23 of 1982.
( 2 ) THE appellant herein filed the aforesaid suit for partition against respondent No. 1, his younger brother after making State of West Bengal as a pro-forma defendant. The subject matter of the suit was piece and parcel of land measuring 2 kottahs together with a two storied pucca building and other kuttcha and pucca structures standing thereon being Plot No. E/251 (Local No. 1/29), Vivek Nagar Colony, Calcutta. The case made out by the appellant in the plaint was that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were refugees from East Pakistan and the land was forcibly occupied by them and the Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation Department, West Bengal granted necessary licence in favour of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 for the purpose of residence. According to the appellant, initially there was kutcha houses constructed by the parties but gradually a two storied pucca building was constructed over the land at the cost of both plaintiff and defendant No. 1. After making such construction, the parties were living amicably, but of late, the defendant No. 1 having started asserting absolute title over the structure and having threatened dispossession of the plaintiff, the suit was filed for partition after making State of West Bengal, the licensor of the land as a party.
( 3 ) THE aforesaid suit was contested by the respondent No. 1 by filing written statement thereby enying the allegations made in the plaint. In the written statement, the defendant No. 1 did not dispute grant of joint licence by the State of West Bengal in favour of both the brothers but his defence was that he constructed the pucca building at his own cost after taking loan from his office and he restricted his construction within half of the 2 1/2 kottahs of land keeping the other half vacant so that the defendant may also construct on the remaining portion of the land. It was the definite case of the defendant that the plaintiff was a licensee under him in respect of the structure and the plaintiff had neither financial capability nor did he contribute any amount towards the construction of the building which was made with the consent of the plaintiff.
( 4 ) AT the time of hearing of the aforesaid suit, plaintiff along gave evidence in support of his case while three witnesses including the defendant No. 1 deposed in opposing the prayer of the plaintiff.
( 5 ) THE learned trial Judge by the judgment and decree dated May 29, 1982 decreed the suit in preliminary form thereby declaring half share of the plaintiff in the disputed property including structure and the parties were directed to make amicable partition within two months. It was further observed that the suit plot and structure being squatters' colony, the partition will not bind the State of West Bengal.
( 6 ) BEING dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge, the defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 654 of 1982 and by the judgment and decree impugned in this appeal, the learned first appellate Court below set aside those passed by the learned trial Judge and dismissed the suit for partition.
( 7 ) BEING dissatisfied, the plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal.
( 8 ) INITIALLY the instant second appeal was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court below and affirming those passed by the learned trial Judge.
( 9 ) BEING dissatisfied, the plaintiff preferred a special leave application before the Apex
.REFERRED TO : Mallesappa B. Desai and Anr. v. Desai Mallappa and Anr.
AI
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.