High Court Of Calcutta
MONORANJAN MALLICK, M. N. RAY
SATCHIDANANDA SAMANTA - Appellant
Versus
RANJAN KUMAR BASU - Respondent
T. A. 135 Of 1975
Decided On : 10/10/1991
PARTITION - Partial Partition - Maintainability - Co-sharer seeking partition of joint property without bringing all the joint properties in the hotchpot - Suit is not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff Satchidananda filed a suit for partition and accounts against his brother Achutananda and others, claiming an 8 annas share in the suit property, which included a cinema house. The defendants, including Ranjan Bose, Bishnu Pada Pramanik, and Abdul Latif, contested the suit, claiming that the property had been previously partitioned and that they had acquired shares in the land and the cinema business. The trial court found that the property had not been previously partitioned and declared the shares of the parties accordingly.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was not maintainable as partial partition, as Satchidananda had not brought all the joint properties into the hotchpot of the suit. The court noted that Satchidananda had admitted in his evidence that he had filed the suit for partition only in respect of a portion of the joint property, and that he had not included other joint properties in the suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit property had been previously partitioned. 2. Whether the suit was maintainable as partial partition.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the onus was on the defendants to prove that there was a previous partition, and that they had failed to discharge this onus. The court noted that the evidence of the defendants was contradictory and that no document relating to the amicable partition was produced. 2. The court held that a co-sharer cannot file a suit for partition of a portion of the joint property without bringing all the joint properties into the hotchpot of the suit. The court noted that Satchidananda had admitted in his evidence that he had not included all the joint properties in the suit, and that the suit was, therefore, not maintainable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the suit as not maintainable.
( 1 ) THE Sub-Ordinate Judge, 10th Court, Alipore heard the T. S. No. 1/54 re-numbered as T. S. 49/73 together with T. S. No, 57/61, T. S. No. 32/62 and T. S. No. 103/65 analogously under order of the High Court, Calcutta and have delivered a common judgment and decree dated 18th December, 1974.
( 2 ) BEING aggrieved Satchidananda Samanta, the plaintiff in T. S. No. 1/54 has filed F. A. No. 21/76, Ranjan Bose, the plaintiff in T. S. No. 57/61 has filed F. A. No. 22/76 against the judgment and decree passed in T. S. No. 103/65, Achutananda Samanta, the plaintiff of that suit preferred the T. A. No. 183/75 and Satchidananda Samanta preferred T. A. No. 135/75 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Alipore. They have now been transferred to High Court, Calcutta so that F. A. No. 21/16 and F. A. No. 22/76 can be heard analogously with T. A. No. 135/75 and T. A. No. 183/75. Be it noted that nobody has preferred any appeal against the judgment and decree passed in T. S. No. 32/62.
( 3 ) THE facts of the above Titles Suits against which the above appeals have arisen may be briefly stated as follows :-saichidananda Samanta has filed T. S. No. 1/54 which has been re-numbered as T. S. No. 49/73. Satchidananta Samanta filed this suit for partition and accounts against Ranjan Kumar Bose, Smt. Khirodamoyee Dassi, his mother, since deceased and Achutananda Samanta, his elder brother. Subse- quently, Bishnu Pada Pramanik, Abdul Latif and others were added as defendants of that suit. The subject matter of the suit is 41 cents of land in Dag No. 614 of Khatian No. 231 of Mouja-Joy Chandipur, P. S.-Budge Budge with a pucca structure being a Cinema House thereon. Subsequently, 14 cents of land in Dag No. 621 under Khatian No. 286 of the same Mouja has also been included in the schedule of the property. The plaintiff has alleged that the suit property along with other properties belonged to their father, Gopi Nath Samanta who died in Jaistya, 1341 B. S. leaving Satchidananda and Achutananda, the two sons and widow, Khirodainoyee as heirs and legal representatives. They remained in joined possession of the properties including the suit property. Before his death Gopinath stacked huge quantities of bricks and kept in stock timbers, door, windows, window frames etc. With the consent of Satchidananda, Achutananda started construction of a Cinema House on Dag No. 624 utilising the bricks and timber materials. stacked by their father. As Satchidananda has not been given the accounts in respect of the income of the said cinema house inspite of repeated demands, he has brought this suit for partition claiming 8 annas share in the lands and structures and the business of the cinema house. He has impleaded Sri Ranjan Bose as the plaintiff has come to know Ranjan Bose has purchased 6 annas sha re of the land as well as the cinema house from Achutananda. With these allegations the above suit for partition and accounts have been filed. As in the written statement of Ranjan, it was disclosed that the added defendants. Bishnu Pada Pramanik and Abdul Latif were brought in by Achutananda as partners to the cinema business, Bishnu Pada and Abdul Latif have been added and one Keshab Chandra Rakshit has also been added as defendant Nos. 2 (Ka), 2 (Kha) and 2 (Ga ). Achutananda having died during the pendency of the suit has been substituted by his heirs and legal representatives. The suit was contested by Ranjan Kumar Bose, Achutananda Samanta and also by Bishnu Pada and Abdul Latif Ranjan Bose and Achutananda Samanta filed separate written statement and Bishnu Pada and Abdul Latif have filed a joint written statement.
( 4 ) THE written statement of Ranjan Bishnu and Latif are similar in nature and may be stated as follows :-satchidananda Samanta and Achutananda Samanta after the death of their father got the joint properties partitioned by metes and bounds and the disputed plots fell in the share of Achutananda. He alone made construction
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.