The main legal point established in the judgment is the competence of a co-owner to transfer a definite part of joint property, the effect of the transfer on the rights of other co-owners, and the entitlement to recovery of the entire allotted land.

This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the common judgment dated 19.09.2011 delivered in Title Appeal No.02/2010 and Title (Cross Objection) Appeal No.01/2011 by the Additional District Judge, North Tripura District, Kamalpur [now Unakoti Judicial District, Kamalpur].

2. At the time of admitting this appeal against the concurrent finding on affirmation of the common judgment dated 06.10.2010 delivered in Title Suit No.13 of 2007 and Title Suit No.02 (Counter-Claim) of 2007 by the trial court, the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kamalpur, North Tripura, the following substantial question of law was formulated by the order dated 08.04.2013 :

“Whether the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in T.S.13 of 2007, suffers from perversity?

However, the liberty was reserved to ‘hear’ the appeal on any other question of law that may arise in the course of hearing.

3. Having due regard to the substantial question of law, Mr. D.K. Daschaudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has proposed for reframing substantial question of law in the following terms :

“Whether the defendant No.1 had competence to transfer the suit land with definite boundaries having the effect of partition in favour of the defendant No.2 by means of the gift deed No.1924 dated 28.12.1983 inasmuch as the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 had the equal share over the land and at the relevant point of time the plaintiff was a minor and no authority has been obtained following the due process for execution of the said gift deed for the minor?”

4. Having considered the proposed substantial question of law, this court has reframed the substantial question of law, which reads as under:

“Whether the finding by affirming the judgment returned by the trial court holding that in the land, as described in the Schedule-A, the plaintiff has got the equal right, title and interest over the suit land as the co-parcener without making any further analysis in respect of the status of the land as described in the gift deed bearing No.1-1924 dated 28.12.1983 (Exbt.A), can be sustained in view of its effects of partition?”

5. For purpose of appreciating the substantial question of law, the relevant fact as available in the records may be introduced at the outset.

There is no dispute that Bhanu Bhusan Chakraborty, the deceased father of the plaintiff and the husband of the defendant No.1 got the land as described in the Schedule-A in the plaint by way of allotment. Even though the order of allotment was not produced but the khatian No.336 of mouja Salema, opened on mutation, has been admitted in the evidence as Exbt.C for showing that the land was allotted in favour of Bhanu Bhusan Chakraborty. After death of Bhanu Bhusan Chakraborty, indisputedly the plaintiff, namely Seema Chakraborty and the defendant No.1, Mina Rani Chakraborthy, as the legal heirs, inherited the property. On 21.01.1975, Bhanu Bhusan Chakraborty died intestate and as such there had been no testamentary successor in respect of the said property as described in the Schedule-A of the plaint. Hence it is obvious that the plaintiff, who was minor at the time of death of Bhanu Bhusan Chakraborty, and the defendant No.1 had equal right and interest over the said property. None has claimed in the suit that the defendant No.1, Mina Rani Chakraborty had ever been appointed as the guardian to manage the minor’s property or to transfer such property. On 28.12.1983 the defendant No.1 executed the gift deed, being 1-1924 in favour of the defendant No.2, Sri Kanak Bhusan Chakraborty, her brother in law. At that time even, the plaintiff was minor and such gift deed was executed without any authority to transfer the joint property standing in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. By the allotment order dated 07.10.1974, the suit land classified as tilla measuring 0.20 acre was allotted to Bhanu Bhusan Chakraborty. The said