Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, GAURANG KANTH
Prasanna Kumar Koley – Appellant
Versus
Biswanath Koley – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
1. The defendants in a suit for partition have preferred the instant appeal against the ex parte final decree of partition passed therein.
2. The learned trial Judge, in the preliminary decree, declared the shares of the parties, which has not been challenged. Subsequently, allegedly without notice to the defendants, the Partition Commissioner, appointed by the trial court behind the back of the defendants, conducted the commission work and filed his final report. It is contended that the Partition Commissioner was never examined, nor was any opportunity of examining the Partition Commissioner afforded to the present defendants/appellants.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants places reliance on Order No. 88 dated March 8, 2018 passed in the suit, whereby the Partition Commissioner was directed to give notice to both sides before holding the commission work.
4. Learned counsel also places reliance on the Partition Commissioner’s report itself, where it was categorically stated by the Partition Commissioner that he went to the locale after due service of notice through Registered Post with A/D and the lawyer of the plaintiff and the plain
Finality of partition orders and presumption of notice are upheld unless proven otherwise.
Appeal court remands partition final decree for objections to flawed commissioner's report and procedural fairness.
The court upheld the partition and equitable distribution of property based on the Commissioner's report, emphasizing the importance of amicable resolution in family disputes.
Parties must raise objections during proceedings to ensure procedural fairness; failure to object undermines claims of prejudice in final decrees.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of accurate reporting and valuation of properties in property disputes, as well as the provisions of Order 26 Rule 10(2) of CPC.
The final decree in a partition suit must comply with the preliminary decree, which is binding, and any deviations must be justified under proper legal procedures.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
