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

2003 Supreme(Cal) 409

High Court Of Calcutta
D. K. SETH, S. K. GUPTA
MIRA BANIK - Appellant
Versus
SMITA BHATTACHARYYA - Respondent
F. M. A. T.  1774  Of  2003
Decided On : 08/11/2003

Advocates Appeared:
RAMESHWAR BHATTACHARYA

A cause of action for partition cannot be maintained where the property in question has already been partitioned.

Headnote:

{'KEYWORD': 'PARTITION SUIT', 'SUBJECT': 'JOINDER OF PARTIES', 'ACT SECTION LIST': []}

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and defendant No. 1 purchased property 'A' in December 2002. Plaintiffs claimed partition of properties 'A', 'B', and 'C' in a suit filed in West Bengal, alleging joint ownership and inconvenience in joint possession. Defendants No. 2 series, 3, and 4, residents of Orissa, were included in the suit based on an alleged encroachment on property 'B' during the construction of a boundary wall between properties 'B' and 'C'. The defendants asserted that property 'C' was not subject to partition as it was already partitioned in 1962.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiffs did not have a cause of action for partition against defendants No. 2 series, 3, and 4 with respect to property 'C' as it was already partitioned in 1962. The court also found that the plaintiffs had abused the process of law by including defendants No. 2 series, 3, and 4 in the suit as there was no joint ownership or cause of action against them.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs had a cause of action for partition against defendants No. 2 series, 3, and 4 with respect to property 'C'. 2. Whether the plaintiffs had abused the process of law by including defendants No. 2 series, 3, and 4 in the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiffs did not have a cause of action for partition against defendants No. 2 series, 3, and 4 with respect to property 'C' as it was already partitioned in 1962. The court relied on the Deed of Partition executed in 1962, which showed that property 'C' was allotted to defendants No. 2 series, 3, and 4 and their predecessors in title. 2. The court held that the plaintiffs had abused the process of law by including defendants No. 2 series, 3, and 4 in the suit as there was no joint ownership or cause of action against them. The court found that the plaintiffs had attempted to subterfuge the Court's process in extending its jurisdiction outside its territorial limits by roping in the defendants No. 2 series, 3, and 4.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and expunged the names of defendants No. 2 series, 3, and 4 from the plaint as well as the property described in Schedule 'C' from the subject-matter of the said partition suit.

D. K. SETH, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal will be heard. No notice need be issued. Records need not be called for. In Re: CAN 5872 of 2003 when the application for interim order was taken up, Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Counsel for the respondents, appears and opposes the grant of interim order. Both Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Chatterjee, appearing for the respondents had made their respective submission on the application. Virtually both have addressed the Court on the merits of the appeal itself. Therefore, by consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list for hearing and is taken up for hearing and is disposed of as under.

( 2 ) IT appears that 'a' Schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and the defendant No. 1 sometimes in December 2002. In the plaint, the date of purchase has not been mentioned. In paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, the following statements have been made :"4. That the property described in Schedule-A originally belonged to Surya narayan Mukherjee who transferred the property described in Schedule A in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 Smita Bhattacharyya, the plaintiff No. 2 rina Paul and the defendant No. 1 Aneeta De. By virtue of the said transfer both the plaintiffs acquired 2/3rd undivided share in respect of the property described in the Schedule-A. 5. That the property described in Schedule A is a joint property among the plaintiffs Smita Bhattacharyya, Rina Paul and the defendant No. 1 Aneeta de. Joint possession is becoming inconvenient among the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1. 6. That the property described in the Schedules B and C originally belonged to Puma Charan Addy. Purna Chandra Addy died leaving behind him his two sons Bimal Charan Addy and Gopinath Addy. Bimal Charan Addy died leaving behind him his two sons, the defendant No. 2 Sudhir Kumar Addy [predecessor of defendants 2 (a) to 2 (c)] the defendant No. 3 Sunit Kumar addy and one daughter, Mira Banik and their mother or wife of Bimal Charan addy i. e. , Madhabilata Addy, Madhabilata Addy has since expired. 7. That by virtue of a Deed of Partition executed on 19. 7. 1962 by said Gopinath addy and the heirs of Bimal Charan Addy and defendants No. 3 to 4 along with their mother Madhabilata Addy effected partition of the erstwhile joint properties including the properties described in Schedule B and C. 8. That by virtue of the Deed of Partition executed on 19. 7. 1962 the property described in Schedule "b" was allotted in favour of Gopinath Addy whereas the property described in Schedule "c " was allotted to Sudhir Kumar Addy, defendants No. 3 and 4 along with their mother Madhabilata Addy. The parties have transferred their properties (other than the suit properties)allotted to them or their predecessors by virtue of the Deed of Partition. 9. That at or about the time when the partition was effected there was no line of demarcation between B and C Schedule properties. Later in the year 1999, Sudhir Kumar Addy and the defendants No. 3 and 4 arbitrarily gave a partition wall. Such partition wall is not in accordance with the Deed of partition dated 19. 7. 1962. The plaintiffs have repeatedly measured B and C schedule properties and every time found that said Sudhir Kumar Addy and defendants No. 3 and 4 gave partition wall in excess of their share. The matter did not end there. Sudhir Kumar Addy and the defendants No. 3 and 4 have been bringing purchasers to sell their inflated portion. "

( 3 ) ON the basis of the allegation made in paragraphs 11 and 12, partition has been claimed. Paragraphs 11 and 12 arc quoted as under :"11. That it has already been mentioned above that the property described in Schedule-B was allotted to Gopinath Addy by virtue of Partition Deed dated 19. 07. 1962. Gopinath Addy died leaving behind him his son Sushil kr. Addy. Before his death Gopinath Addy executed a Will and thereby bequeathed B Schedule properties as also other properties in


















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