A partition of land between co-sharers is legally void unless effected through a registered instrument or a court decree, as statutory requirements for registration override equitable principles of estoppel in property title matters.

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The appeal arises at the instance of the plaintiff out of a suit for declaration that a registered deed of partition bearing no.834 dated March 9, 2015 is a forged, manufactured and invalid document with a finding that the plaintiff has 2/5th share in the properties covered by the partition deed, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disposing of the suit properties and making any construction, and consequential reliefs. In the said suit, the defendant/respondent nos.1 to 3 filed a written statement along with a counter claim, seeking partition of 92 decimals in RS Plot No.1664.

2. The brief facts of the case are that one Amiyo Kumar Banerjee was the original owner of the entire property, comprised of the suit property and the subject property of the counter claim. On the demise of the said Amiyo, a written family settlement deed was prepared amongst his heirs in the year 1981, which according to the plaintiff was neither registered nor acted upon. In 1996, another family settlement deed was entered into between all the parties to the present suit, which was also not registered and, according to the plaintiff, not acted upon.

3. The subject-matter of the 1996 deed was divided into Schedule 1, comprised of RS Plot Nos.1814, 1815 and 1816 to the extent of 1.30 acres and RS Plot No.1813 to the extent of 29 decimals. Schedule 2 of the said deed comprised of RS Plot No.1664 to the extent of 92 decimals. As per the said deeds, ‘Anabila Villa’, a building standing on RS Plot No.1664, which comprised of Schedule 2 of the deed and is the subject matter of the counter claim, went to the share of the plaintiff whereas ‘Swapan Puri’ was a construction standing on Schedule 1 of the said deed, which is the suit property.

4. The plaintiff claims that no valid partition was effected either by the 1981 deed or the 1996 deed. However, the defendants, among themselves, executed a registered deed of partition on March 9, 2015, thereby partitioning the subject-matter of the suit property, where ‘Swapan Puri’ stands, between themselves, without impleading the plaintiff as a party. It is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that in the absence of any valid partition by metes and bounds, either by a registered deed or by a decree or order of a court, no partition ever took place between the parties and the entire property, comprised of both the subject-matters of the suit and the counter claim, housing ‘Swapan Puri’ and ‘Anabila Villa’ respectively, remained joint properties.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant contends that in terms of Section 14 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the WBLR Act”), without a registered partition deed or a valid decree of a court of law, no partition can be effected in West Bengal.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel cites a co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Md. Nazrul Islam and Another v. Sri Uday Chakraborty and Others , reported at 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 1603, where the Division Bench reiterated that Section 14 of the WBLR Act, as amended in the year 2002, cannot nullify the effect of oral partition, if it is found that the joint property belonging to the co-sharers were partitioned amicably prior to August 7, 1969. By necessary implication, it is argued, mutual family arrangements entered into after the said date, from when the relevant amendments in Section 14 of the WBLR Act came into effect, do not pass any title or create any interest on the basis of such partition.

7. Learned counsel also cites Kartick Chandra Mandal v. Netai Mondal (Dead) by Lrs. and Others, reported at (2009) 2 SCC 105, where the Supreme Court held that there is no doubt so far as Section 14 of the WBLR Act came into force in West Bengal with effect from June 7, 1965 except in the areas transferred from Bihar to West Bengal and therefore, after the introduction of the aforesaid provision, the partition of a holding can be eff