SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Tri) 269

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
T. Amarnath Goud, S.G. Chattopadhyay, JJ.
Apurba Chakraborty & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Tapan Chakraborty (Plaintiff) & Ors. - Respondents
RFA No. 13 of 2018
Decided On : 04-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, Advocate., for the Appellant; Mr. A. Sengupta, Advocate., for the Respondent

An inheritance claim requires proper documentation and evidence; properties must be partitioned according to legal shares established upon inheritance.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Appeal against partition suit - The appeal was filed against the decree of a partition suit where the plaintiff sought partition of ancestral property. Section 96 allows for appeals from decrees in civil suits. (Paras 1, 2, 12)

(B) Partition of Property - Legal principles on partition and share distribution among heirs in accordance with inheritance laws were discussed. The court affirmed that the property must be divided according to legal entitlement. (Paras 4, 11)

(C) Evidence and Procedural Fairness - The court highlighted the importance of proper evidence and documentation in establishing claims regarding property transfer and ownership. It noted the failure of the appellant to substantiate their claims regarding a deed transfer. (Paras 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought partition of 3.50 acres of ancestral land inherited from Nagendranath Chakraborty after lengthy disputes among heirs, asserting joint ownership and share in compensation for acquired land. (Paras 2, 6, 12)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the lower court's ruling that the suit for partition was valid, affirming the plaintiffs' right to a 1/14th share of the land and compensation associated with it. The defendants were instructed to partition the property according to the expressed shares within a month. (Paras 16, 21)

Issues: The court addressed whether the suit was maintainable, whether the parties held rights in the land, and whether compensation from land acquisition should be shared. (Paras 14)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that since the property was not partitioned before a deed transfer, validity challenges rendered the deed ineffective for asserting exclusive claims. Therefore, the trial court’s decree was found justifiable. (Paras 20, 21)

Result: The appeal is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. inheritance and distribution of ancestral property. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. process and claims for partition of undivided land. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. framing of issues in property disputes. (Para 14)
4. trial court decision on partition claim. (Para 16)
5. appellants' arguments and court's scrutiny of evidence. (Para 17 , 19 , 20)
6. final ruling and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This is an appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment dated 09.04.2018 and decree dated 23.04.2018 passed in T.S.(Partition) 13 of 2015 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Udaipur, District: Gomati Tripura.

2. The facts leading to this appeal are that respondent No.1 being the plaintiff preferred the suit seeking partition and separate possession of ancestral landed property of himself and the defendants-respondents No.2 to 18 (hereinafter called the respondents) as inherited from Nagendranath Chakraborty (since deceased) in respect of the land as described in 'Schedule A' of the pliant measuring 3.50 acres recorded in Khatians No.432(1 to 3) mouza Uttar Chandrapur, Tehshil: Matarbari, Sub-division, Udaipur, District: Gomati Tripura.

3. Sri Nagendra Chakraborty owner of land measuring 4.32 acres of land as detailed in 'Schedule A' of the pliant died intestate on 14.11.1977 AD leaving behind his legal heirs namely, i) Smt. Haimabati Chakraborty-wife, ii) Sri Manmatha Nath Chakraborty-son, iii) Sri Gopesh Chakraborty-son, iv) Sri Shilesh Chandra Chakraborty-son, v) Sri Paresh Chandra Chakraborty-son, vi) Smt. Snehalata Chakraborty-Daughter, vii) Smt. Amiya Bala Chakraborty-daughter, viii) Smt. Mira Chakraborty-daughter.

4. Sri Manmatha Nath Chakraborty died intestate on 19.02.1985 A.D leaving behind him his wife Basana Chakraborty and son Sri Tapan Chakraborty who stepped into the shoes of deceased Manmatha Nath Chakraborty in equal share. Smt. Haimabati Chakraborty, wife of late Nagendra Nath Chakraborty also died intestate on 19.12.1994. The 1/8th share of Himabati Chakraborty was devolved upon the remaining three brothers, three sisters, and wife and son of pre-deceased Manmatha Nath Chakraborty. Sri Gopesh Chandra Chakraborty also died on 1995 A.D. leaving behind him his wife Sabita Chakraborty, son -Apurba Chakraborty, daughters Rama Chakraborty and Smt. Bina Chakraborty who took the share of Gopesh Chandra Chakraborty in the property left by Nagendra Nath Chakraborty in equal shares. Smt. Amiyabala Chakraborty also died on 19.05.2004 leaving behind her two sons, namely Amar Chakraborty, Sri Maran Chakraborty, and daughters-Smt. Dipa Banerjee, Smt. Rita Ganguly and Smt. Mira Chakraborty.

5. Now the share of the successors to the property left by Nagendra Nath Chakraborty is as follows i) Smt. Basana Chakraborty (defendant 140-1/14th, ii) Sri Tapan Chakraborty (plaintiff)-1/14th, iii) Sri Sailesh Chandra Chakraborty(defendant 1)-1/7th, iv) Sri Paresh Chandra Chakraborty (defendant 2)-1/7th, v) Smt. Sabit Chakraborty (defendant 3) -1/28th, vi) Sri Apurba Chakraborty (defendant 4)-1/28th, vii) Smt. Rama Chakraborty(defendant 5)-1/28th, viii) Smt. Bina Chakraborty (defendant 6)-1/28th, ix) Smt. Snelata Chakraborty (defendant 7)-1/7th, x) Smt. Mira Chakraborty (defendant 8)-1/7th, xi) Sri Amar Chakraborty (defendant 9)-1/35th, xii) Sri Maran Chakraborty (defendant 10) 1/35th, xiii) Smt. Dipa Banerjee (defendant 11)-1/35th, xiv) Smt. Rita Ganguly (defendant 12) -1/35th and xv) Smt. Mira Chakraborty (defendant 13)-1/35th.

6. Out of the land measuring 4.32 acres, an area measuring 0.82 acres (as described in Schedule B of the plaint) had been acquired by the Government for railway construction and thus reduced the land left by deceased Nagendra Nath Chakraborty to 3.50 acres as described in the 'Schedule A' of the pliant (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). Out of 'A' Schedule land, an area measuring 0.67 acres had wrongly been recorded in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top