The court affirmed that documentary evidence is paramount in establishing familial relationships over contradictory oral testimony in inheritance disputes.

JUDGMENT :

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad in Title Appeal No. 14 of 2013 passed on 16th March, 2016; by the impugned judgement learned Appellate Court was pleased to set aside the order of dismissal passed by learned Trial Court dated 27th September, 2012 and decreed the suit in the preliminary form.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court.

3. Briefly stated, depicting himself as son of Chabi Rani Bhadra and Aswini Bhadra, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition stating, inter alia, that Chabi Rani Bhadra was the original owner of the suit property which was acquired by purchase and Chabi Rani died intestate on 15th March, 1984 and she was survived by her husband Aswini and son Dilip Kumar Bhadra who thus acquired the property by inheritance.

4. Aswini Bhadra married for the second time. Minati Bhadra is his second wife and in that marriage he fathered two children - Payel @ Munmun Bhadra, daughter and Swadhin Kumar Bhadra, son. After the birth of Swadhin Kumar Bhadra, defendant no. 3, the behaviour of the step mother of the plaintiff towards him was completely changed; she started instigating Aswini against the plaintiff. On 12th March, 2003 Aswini Kumar Bhadra died intestate leaving behind him surviving the plaintiff and defendant no. 3 as his sons defendant no. 2 as his only daughter and defendant no. 1 as his widow.

5. After the demise of Chabi Rani Bhadra the plaintiff acquired the half share in the suit property and he acquired 1/8th share by way of inheritance after the demise of Aswinin Kumar Bhadra. Having found inconvenience in enjoying the property jointly with the defendants the plaintiff approached the defendants for amicable settlement but his proposal was turned down, inasmuch as the defendants denied right title interest of the plaintiff over the suit property. It is admitted that Aswini Kumar Bhadra sold and transferred the entire property which he acquired on the death of his first wife in favour of the defendant no. 1 by sale. Hence the suit.

6. The defendants contested the suit by filing joint written statement denying all material averments of the plaintiff. It is the specific case of the defendants that Chabi Rani Bhadra was not the biological mother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the son of elder brother of Aswini, his father was Amulya Kumar Bhadra and mother was Gouri Rani Bhadra. Chabi Rani Bhadra was survived by her husband Aswini as her sole legal heir and after the demise of Chabi Rani Bhadra, Aswini married the defendant no. 1 who gave birth to defendant nos. 2 and 3.

7. Aswini Died intestate leaving behind him surviving defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 as his legal heirs. During his lifetime Aswini Kumar Bhadra sold and transferred the suit property by executing the deed of sale in favour of the defendant no. 1 and she acquired the absolute interest in the property by purchase. Learned Trial Court after considering the evidence on record was pleased to dismiss the suit.

8. The plaintiff challenged the judgement of learned Trial Court in Title Appeal No. 14 of 2013. Learned First Appellate Court was pleased to reverse the judgement of learned Trial Court and acknowledging the status of the plaintiff as son of Chabi Rani Bhadra and Aswini. Learned First Appellate Court further