Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 4241
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, Subhendu Samanta, JJ
PROSAD @ RATUL BANERJEE – Appellant
Versus
DEVA PROSAD BANERJEE & ORS. – Respondent
FA 62 / 2025
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Partition Suits
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Property Law - Declaratory suit - Further relief - The proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act applies when a plaintiff omits to seek 'further' relief consequential to a declaration of title - Partition is an independent, non-consequential relief that does not necessarily have to be sought alongside a declaration of title, particularly when a party is content with joint possession. (Paras 20, 22, and 24)
(C) Precedent - Doctrine of staring decisis - Subsequent judgments that elucidate and explain a previous ruling, taking into account statutory amendments, are to be treated as the binding precedent over earlier, more generalized findings regarding family arrangements in the context of specific land laws. (Paras 45 and 46)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a suit seeking a declaration that a registered partition deed, executed only by the defendants, was forged and invalid, asserting their 2/5th shareholding in the property. The defendants filed a counter-claim for partition. The trial court dismissed the suit, leading to this appeal. The primary contention revolved around whether previous unregistered family arrangements bound the parties despite the statutory prohibition against unregistered partitions under State law.
Findings of Court:
The court held that Section 14 of the land legislation constitutes a substantive bar that invalidates any partition of raiyati land unless executed through a registered instrument. Consequently, principles of estoppel cannot be used to circumvent an express statutory prohibition. The suit was found maintainable as partition is not a mandatory 'further' relief under the specific relief statute when a co-owner seeks only a declaration of title, and the counter-claim was dismissed for non-joinder of all joint properties.
Issues: (i) Whether the suit is barred under the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act for failing to seek partition; (ii) Whether unregistered family settlement documents constitute a valid partition in light of the mandate for registration under State land laws; (iii) Whether a partition deed excluding a co-owner is valid; (iv) The maintainability of the defendant's counter-claim.
Ratio Decidendi: Statutory mandates in land-specific legislation requiring registration carry an overriding effect over general equitable principles like estoppel. Because the law stipulates that no partition shall have 'any force' without a registered instrument, written family arrangements that do not meet these requirements confer no legal title and are invalid as a mode of partition.
Result: Appeal allowed. The impugned judgment and decree are set aside. The registered partition deed is declared invalid. The appellant’s claim to 2/5th share is recognized, and an injunction is granted against the respondents.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Partha Pratim Roy, Dyutiman Banerjee, Vishal Mallick
For the Respondents: Aniruddha Chatterjee, Tanmoy Mukherjee, Souvik Das, K. Raihan Ahmed, Soumava Santra
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 ef
