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
| 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
An inheritance claim requires proper documentation and evidence; properties must be partitioned according to legal shares established upon inheritance.
The court ruled that disputed gift deeds require credible evidence for enforcement; joint property claims must prioritize actual possession and entitlement over mere assertions of gift.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove right, title, and possession over acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, and the relevance of Banatannama in determ....
A party seeking partition must challenge the validity of prior transactions affecting the property and cannot seek partition of property that has been sold and is in the possession of third parties w....
The judgment reaffirmed that court decrees regarding property rights supersede private agreements, emphasizing the importance of legal procedures in establishing ownership.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once a party agrees to the mode and manner of partition before the Commissioner, they cannot resile from the same.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish the remaining land after a sale of joint family property and the probative value of registered documents in determi....
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.