Form No. J(2)

In the High Court at Calcutta

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present: The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

And

The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya

FAT 431 of 2025

IA No: CAN 1 of 2025

CAN 2 of 2025

Chittanku Ranjan Das

Vs.

Smt. Swati Das and others

For the appellant : Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee,

Ms. Susmita Chatterjee, Ms. Dipanwita Ganguly

Mr. Soumava Santra

For the respondent

nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya,

Mr. Anirban Saha Roy,

Mr. Sounak Mondal, Mr. Abhirup Halder For the respondent

no.5 : Mr. Ramesh Chandra Paul

Heard on : 05.01.2026 Judgment on : 05.01.2026

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

Re: CAN 1 of 2025

1. In view of sufficient explanation for the delay in preferring the appeal

having been made out, CAN 1 of 2025 is allowed, thereby condoning

the delay in filing FAT 431 of 2025.

2. Let the appeal be deemed to stand registered and admitted.

3. There will be no order as to costs.

Re: FAT 431 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025

4. In view of the short conspectus of the appeal, the same is taken up for hearing, by dispensation of preparation of formal paper books and calling for the trial court records, along with the stay application.

5. The present appeal has been preferred against a preliminary decree of partition.

6. The primary contention of the defendant/appellant before this Court is two-fold. First, that some of the daughters of the original absolute owner Chinta Haran Das have not been impleaded as parties to the suit, thereby rendering the partition suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Secondly, some of the joint properties belonging to the parties have not been brought within the hotchpot of the partition suit, thereby vitiating the suit in its present form on the ground of partial partition.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant hands over copies of a deed of settlement, which was exhibited in the trial court, to reiterate that in terms of the said deed, the said original owner Chinta Haran Das had created a trust and included Smt. Charu Bala Das, his wife, along with his sons, as trustees. It is, thus, contended that upon the demise of Charu Bala, the daughters of Chinta Haran Das and Charu Bala would be entitled, in the capacity of heirs of Charu Bala Das, to be co-owners of the property, although not made trustees directly in the deed of settlement.

8. That apart, learned counsel for the appellant relies on the written statement of the defendant/appellant in the trial court, where it was pleaded that the suit is bad for partial partition, since certain other properties, which are also joint properties between the parties, have not been brought within the hotchpot of the suit.

9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondents argues that even from the deed of settlement dated March 04, 1957 relied on by the defendant no.2/appellant, it is evident that merely life interest was given to Smt. Charu Bala Das. Thereafter, the property was to devolve absolutely to the remaining trustees, that is, the sons of Chinta Haran Das.

10. Hence, it is argued that the daughters of Chinta Haran Das are not co-owners and cannot be necessary parties to the partition suit.

11. Insofar as the partial partition argument is concerned, learned senior counsel places reliance on the relevant portions of the impugned judgment where the learned Trial Judge dealt with the said contention and placed reliance on the admission of the defendant/appellant as D.W.2, to the effect that a business was being run at 12-B, Russel Street, which is owned not exclusively by the present parties, but also one niece, Sima Bose apart from the parties to the partition suit.

12. On the premise of such admission, the learned Trial Judge, it is pointed out, proceeded to come to the conclusion that the suit is perfectly maintainable in its present form and accordingly granted the preliminary decree therein.

13. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find substance in the contentions of the plaintiffs