In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Justice Uday Kumar F.A. No.248 of 2008 With CAN 2 of 2011 (Old No: CAN 4564 of 2011)

Smt. Dipali Rani Sett and Another Vs.

Uma Rani Sett and Others For the appellant : Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee, Mr. Pinaki Brata Ghosh, Mr. Abhinaba Roy For the respondent : Mr. H. Banerjee, Snr. Adv.

Mr. A. B. Raut, Mr. C. B. Biswas Hearing concluded on : 27.01.2025 Judgment on : 30.01.2025 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The present appeal has been preferred against a judgment declaring the shares of the parties in the estate of one Sushil Kumar Sett, since deceased, primarily comprised of the shares in different companies standing in the name of the said Sushil Kumar Sett.

2. The brief background of the case is that initially the present appellants had filed an application for obtaining a succession certificate, dividing the subject property of the said proceeding into five schedules, namely Schedules A, B, C, D and E. Insofar as the Schedules C, D and E are concerned, the plaintiffs/respondents herein conceded to the exclusive title of the present appellants to the said properties.

3. However, insofar as the property (primarily shares of Sushil Kumar Sett in different companies) covered by Schedules A and B of the succession certificate application is concerned, it was an admitted position that the present defendants/appellants were entitled only to 1/6th share therein whereas the plaintiffs had 5/6^th share.

4. The succession certificate was granted accordingly, granting exclusive interest/title of the defendants/appellants in Schedules C, D and E whereas only 1/6th interest of the defendants/appellants was granted in respect of the Schedules A and B properties.

5. However, after the said chapter was closed, about two decades later, the defendants/appellants reopened the issue by applying for grant of an extended succession certificate. Without notice to or any hearing being given to the present plaintiffs/respondents, such extended succession certificate was granted, now in respect of Schedules A and B properties also.

6. Naturally, the plaintiffs/respondents sought a revocation of the same which failed on technical grounds, since revocation of a succession certificate is not specifically provided for in the Indian Succession Act and also as in the opinion of the court, questions relating to title cannot be gone into in a proceeding for revocation of a succession certificate.

7. The plaintiffs then filed a suit seeking declaration of their title to the extent of 5/6th share in the properties (primarily shares standing in the name of Sushil) comprised of the subject matter of the extended succession certificate, which corresponds to the Schedules A and B of the original succession certificate application.

8. The said suit was dismissed on contest. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs/respondents herein, which culminated in a judgment and order of remand being passed.

9. The present chapter of the dispute starts thereafter.

10. The learned Trial Judge, in consonance with the remand order, permitted the parties to lead evidence. However, it is the plaintiffs/respondents alone, and not the defendants/appellants, who led further evidence. Several documents were exhibited by the plaintiffs/respondents after remand. The learned Trial Judge, after going through those and hearing the parties, adjudicated the suit after remand, thereby declaring 5/6th share of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property which was the subject matter of the extended succession certificate and 1/6th share of the defendants.

11. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the learned Trial Judge did not adhere to the points on which the matter was remanded and rather acted without jurisdiction in going contrary to the same by re- deciding certain issues which were already decided finally by the appellate court and taking into