IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SOUMEN SEN, UDAY KUMAR, JJ.
Smt. Kalpana Shaw @ Saha & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sri Bratin Saha – Respondent
FA 263 of 2014
Decided on : 13-04-2023
Transfer of the Property Act - Section 10 - Suit for declaration - Recovery of Khas possession - Execution of Will - Eviction and recovery - Whether plaintiff even if he fails to prove his absolute title in suit property can maintain a suit for recovery of possession from trespasser as a co-owner of suit property - Held, Appellants have taken different stands at different point of time in appeal appellants have accepted deed of gift - Purpose of referring to will of bonku was initially to show that Will only recognized male line of succession on death of his sons and it is in source of title to all being perfected by final decree - Final decree in partition suit was passed after probate was granted in favor - Partition decree passed by Justice Costello on construction of Will - right of the plaintiff qua the suit property is not under any ‘cloud’ and well established having regard to the Will, partition decree and the gift of 1943. It is also interesting to note that the appellants tried to make out a case of acquisition of title by adverse possession -Appeal Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Soumen Sen, J.
1. The appeal is arising out of a judgment and decree dated 12th January, 2009, in a suit for declaration, recovery of Khas possession and mesne profits.
2. The appellants are the legal heirs of Bilash Behari Shaw @ Saha.
3. Briefly stated one Bonku Behari Shaw @ Saha was the common ancestor of the parties. Bonku Behari owned several properties both movable and immovable. During his life time Bonku Behari executed his last Will and testament on 25th November, 1925. Bonku Behari had two wives. His first wife Smt. Radha Rani predeceased Bonku Behari and before the execution of the Will. From the first wife Bonku had four daughters and one son. At the time of execution of the Will his son Bonobehari and two daughters Brojo Gopi and Nidhubala were alive.
4. Smt. Moharani Dasi was the second wife of Bonku Behari. From the second marriage Bonku had three sons namely, Bipin Behari, Pulin Behari and Bijoy Krishna and three daughters namely, Shayma Shakhi, Nanda Rani and Menaka Rani. At the time of execution of the Will Bonobehari, Bipin Behari and Pulin Behari were all major and Bijoy Krishna was minor.
5. The Will gives a list of immovable properties bequeathed in favour of his four sons as mentioned in the Schedule of the Will.
6. Under the Will Bonobehari, Bipin Behari and Pulin Behari became the owner of premises no.79 Narkel Danga North Road, 8 Duff Street, 38 Amherst Street respectively.
7. Bijoy Krishna was given five premises namely, 1A and 1B Ghosh Lane, No.85A Manicktala Street, No.18A and 18B Binod Behari Saha lane. Under the bequeath only the male heirs of his four sons would be entitled to succeed. In other words, the Will only recognized male line of succession on the death of his sons. They would be entitled to enjoy the properties absolutely with the right of alienation. Bonobehari obtained probate of the Will being probate case no.1681 of 1927.
8. By virtue of the Will and subsequent purchase in a court sale in 1935, Bonobehari became the absolute owner of the property presently known as 122-B Sisir Bhaduri Sarani, Kolkata-700 006 containing an area of land measuring 17 Katha, 9 Chitak, 30 Square feet. Bonobehari was survived by five sons, namely, Biman Behari, Bijon Behari, Bongshi Behari, Bimal Behari and Birinchi Behari.
9. During his life time Bonobehari executed a deed of gift on 4th October, 1943 by which he had gifted demarcated portion of the aforesaid properties in favour of his four sons excluding Biman Behari. The deed of gift has indicated the demarcated portions in Schedule Ka, Kha, Ga and Gha respectively in different colours. The said deed, however, restrained the donees from any alienation and creating any encumbrance. It also delineates the line of succession restricted to the male line. However, it provides that his grand-sons down the male line would have the right to gift or sale etc. The said deed also made specific provisions for succession in the event of death of anyone of his sons without any issue. It mentions the devolutions of interest on the surviving male legal heirs and the order in which it would proceed. In other words, it provides that the sons of the donees shall acquire absolute right, title and interest in the property and allotment of their respective fathers would go to their male legal heirs absolutely and forever and if any of such sons do not have any male legal heirs, the same would go to the male legal heirs of the other lot. Biman was one of the attesting witnesses to the deed of gift executed by his father on 4th September, 1943. Biman was survived by two sons Brojo Behari and Bilash Behari. Bilash Behari died on 17th February, 2000. Bilash Behari was survived by the present appellants.
10. The plaintiff Bratin is the son of Bimal Behari. Bimal was one of the sons of Bonobehari and by virtue of the deed of gift became the owner of the suit property.
11. The plaintiff filed the suit inter alia, for eviction and recovery of Khas possession on the ground that th
Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. & Ors.
K. Naina Mahammed (Dead) through Lrs., v. A.M. Vasudevan Chattiar (Dead) through Lrs. & Ors.
Corporation of Madras & Anr. v. M. Parthasarathy & Ors. : 2018(4) ICC 177 paragraphs 14 to 23;
Union of India v. K.V. Lakshman & Ors. : 2016(3) ICC 753 para 37, 34, 20, 22
Akhilesh Singh v. Lal Babu Sing & Ors. : 2018(2) ICC 694 para 13 and 16;
Balaji Singh vs. Diwakar Cole & Ors. : 2017(3) ICC 806 para 21;
A coparcener cannot make a gift of his undivided interest in the family property, and a gift must be of a reasonable extent.
A managing member of a Hindu undivided family may validly gift joint property for charitable purposes without the consent of other coparceners, provided the purpose aligns with the definition of piou....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a family arrangement deed indicating a prior oral partition, lack of possession by the donor at the time of executing the gift deed, and the d....
The court ruled that a gift deed requires valid execution, while stating possession need not be transferred for validity, and that unprobated wills are valid in specific jurisdictions under the India....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Benami Transaction (Prohibitions) Act, 1988, and the Limitation Act, 1963 in determining the validity of property transactio....
No cause of action exists for partition without challenging the underlying gift deed; the plaint cannot be rejected on grounds of limitation based on the alleged fraud.
A deed of gift is irrevocable unless legally revoked, and a family arrangement cannot supersede it without proper grounds.
A gift deed executed by a deceased, if validly registered and accepted, cannot be dismissed without substantial proof of fraud or forgery.
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.