HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
Ghulam Kuddus - Appellant
Versus
S.K. Amjad Ali - Respondent
C.O. 2137 of 2008
Decided on : Aug 24, 2011
PARTITION ACT, 1893 - SECTION 4 - FINAL DECREE - APPLICATION FOR - MAINTAINABILITY - APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE PARTITION ACT IS MAINTAINABLE EVEN AT THE EXECUTION STAGE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for partition of the suit property. The defendant no.1, a stranger, purchased the share of Moyna Bibi, the petitioner's daughter-in-law, in the dwelling house. The petitioner filed an application under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 for preemption. The defendant no.1 filed an application for drawing up the final decree. The trial court allowed the application for final decree without deciding the application under Section 4 of the Partition Act. The petitioner filed a revisional application against the order of the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court did not commit any jurisdictional error in allowing the application for drawing up the preliminary decree in final form. The right of the petitioner to have a decision on the application under Section 4 of the Partition Act is not legally lost so long as the litigation between the contesting co-owners does not terminate by full and final discharge and satisfaction of the final decree for partition.
Issues: Whether an application under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 is maintainable at the execution stage?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sharada Verma (Smt.) v. Dilip Gupta and ors. to hold that an application under Section 4 of the Partition Act can be pressed into service even at execution stage after the final decree in partition suit is passed.
Final Decision: The revisional application was dismissed, without costs. The trial court was directed to dispose of the application under Section 4 of the Partition Act within 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and order.
1. THIS revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against order no.28 dated June 16, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basirhat, District - 24 Parganas (N) in Title Suit No. 1 of 2006, being a suit for partition. By the impugned order, the learned Judge while allowing an application for final decree preferred by the defendant no.1 in the suit (opposite party no.1 herein) directed him to deposit Rs.500 in cash and requested the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 2nd Court, Barasat to suggest the name of a survey knowing pleader commissioner for drawing up the preliminary decree in final form.
2. IT appears to be the claim of the petitioner in the revisional application, the plaintiff in the suit, that he together with the proforma opposite party herein, Moyna Bibi, had jointly purchased the suit property being a plot of land measuring 35 satak, being Dag No.8024, Khatian No. 360, L.R. Khatian No. 2486/1 and 2171/1, J.L. No. 62 in Mouza Zafarpur, P.S. Basirhat, District- 24 Parganas (N) from the vendors for valuable consideration by a registered deed of conveyance; that, after such purchase, the petitioner constructed a dwelling house for his family comprising himself, his wife, sons and daughter-in-law (Moyna Bibi) and constructed a garage, excavated a pond and planted several trees on a portion of the said land measuring 24 satak out of 35 satak; that, Moyna Bibi sold her share in the dwelling house to the defendant no.1, a complete stranger, by a registered deed without disclosing her intention to sell her share to the petitioner; that, a proceeding initiated under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 by the petitioner failed to bring him success since the conditions of preemption were not fulfilled; that, the petitioner instituted the suit for partition whereupon the defendant no.1 entered appearance and filed his written statement claiming partition of the dwelling house; that, preliminary decree in the suit was passed on May 18, 2007 by the learned trial Judge, whereafter the defendant no.1 filed an application for separation and allotment of his share in the suit property; that, the defendant no.1 neither being related by blood nor by marriage to the family of the petitioner and being a stranger having no right to purchase the share of Moyna Bibi, the petitioner filed an application under Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893 registered as Misc. Case No.13 of 2007; that, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code followed at the instance of the petitioner in connection with the said misc. case and upon a contested hearing the trial Judge by an order dated February 16, 2008 restrained the defendant no.1 from interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the suit property till the disposal of the said misc. case; that, a written objection was filed by the petitioner to the application for drawing up final decree filed by the defendant no.1 wherein he contended that till such time the said misc. case is not disposed of, the application for final decree ought not be considered; and that, thereafter, the impugned order was passed on June 16, 2008.
Mr. Verma, learned advocate representing the petitioner contended that the learned trial Judge acted illegally in allowing the application for final decree without giving due regard to the fact that Misc. Case No.13 of 2007 is pending. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1996) 11 SCC 446 (Ghantesher Ghosh v. Madan Mohan Ghosh) in support of his submission that once the application for drawing up the final decree is allowed without any decision on the application under Section 4 of the Partition Act, the petitioners right as claimed therein would be legally lost and, therefore, no order on the application filed by the defendant no.1 ought to have been passed before disposal of the said misc. case. The decision reported in (2000) 10 SCC 562
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.