SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(HC) 2350

AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J
Sandhya Dhara & Others – Appellant
Versus
Saradindu Dhara & Others – Respondent
FMA No. 3846 of 2014



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, Ms. Shabana Hasim, Ms. Neha Roy
For the Respondents: Mr. D.K. Adhikari, Mr. Debdip Adhikari, Ms. Sohini Chakraborty, Mr. Sagnik Chatterjee, Mr. Sayan Mukherjee, Mr. Ariruddha Chatterjee, Mr. Asif Sohail Tarafdar

The appellate court can directly issue a partition decree without remanding when evidence is sufficient, especially when a trust has been lawfully revoked.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Order XLI, Rules 23, 23A, 24 and 25 - Remand of a case for partition after appealing the trial court's judgment deemed unsustainable - Appellate court has sufficient jurisdiction to pass a final decree without remanding when evidence suffices for determination. (Paras 3-26)

(B) Trusts Act, 1882 - Section 78 - Revocation of a trust created by will during lifetime lawful - Right title and interest in property established only on death of settlor. (Paras 14, 16, 21)

Facts of the case:
The appeal concerns the remand by the appellate court modifying a trial court's decision regarding property distribution among heirs based on an alleged family settlement. The settlor purportedly created a trust which he later revoked.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found no justification for remanding the case when it had sufficient evidence to pass a decree of partition by metes and bounds due to the revocation of the previous trust.

Issues: The key issue was whether the appellant court was justified in remanding instead of issuing a direct partition decree given the nature of the findings.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court ruled that the trial and appellate courts must operate under provisions cited accurately to harmonize judicial efficiency without unnecessary delays. The revocation of the trust was valid, necessitating a partition decree without remand.

Result: FMA being 3846 of 2014 is allowed in part; the remand order is set aside.

Table of Content
1. court affirms obligation to provide a clear partition when property disputes arise. (Para 1 , 3 , 5 , 14)
2. trust’s nature and its revocation established the procedural basis for partition. (Para 4 , 15 , 20)
3. parties argue jurisdictional errors in remanding the case for partition. (Para 7 , 8 , 11 , 12)
4. emphasis on expeditious resolution of disputes through direct judgments. (Para 17 , 24 , 25)

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants against the order of remand vide judgment and decree dated February, 12th 2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore, in T.A No. 126 of 2012. By the order impugned learned Court below modified the judgment and decree dated 26th April, 2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 7th Court, Alipore, in T.S. no. 86 of 2005 and thereby ordered to send the matter before the Trial court on restricted remand as if it is a partition suit to mould the Relief to the parties.

2. The background of the case is that the father of the parties namely Sudhangshu Sekhar Dhara (since deceased) executed an alleged family settlement dated 6th July 1992 and distributed his property among his sons and daughters and retained one portion under his ‘khas’ possession. In the said deed it was specifically mentioned that aforesaid Sudhangshu would enjoy the property as trustee and after his demise the trust would be dissolved and the beneficiaries would get their portion absolutely.

Subsequently on January, 3rd 1996, said Sudhangshu executed a deed of revocation, thereby cancelled and revoked the aforesaid deed of settlement dated 6th July, 1992.

3. The plaintiffs being some of the sons and daughters of said Sudhangshu filed aforesaid T.S. No. 86 of 2005, interalia seeking for declaration of their absolute right title interest in the suit property in terms of settlement as mentioned in the schedule to the plaint and also for cancellation of the aforesaid deed of revocation dated January, 3rd 1996.

4. The defendant no. 1, 2 and 4 contested the said suit by filing written statement denying all material allegations brought by the plaintiff in the plaint. The specific case of the defendants is that the deed of settlement executed by Sudhanghsu does not exist, following the deed of revocation and therefore the question of allotment as per deed of settlement does not arise and that now the parties are governed by the Successions Act and accordingly they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Learned Trial Court by a judgment and decree dated 26.04.2012 dismissed the aforesaid suit observing that the deed dated 6th July, 1992 is basically a deed of trust created by will. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree the plaintiffs preferred appeal before the District Judge, Alipore being T.A. No. 126 of 2012. Learned Appellate Court after hearing the parties was pleased to affirm the ultimate conclusion recorded by the Trial court, but held that the reasons thereof are not at all sustainable. Therefore, the court below invoking it’s jurisdiction under order XLI. Rule 33 of Code of Civil Procedure was pleased to modify the decree directing the learned trial judge to proceed with the suit in order to divide the suit property among the parties to the suit by metes and bound as if the suit is one for partition to pass a preliminary decree, declaring respective shares of all the parties to the suit according to the rule of succession applicable to the parties. Therefore Court below sent back the suit on restricted remand to the trial court with the direction to pass a preliminary decree for partition in respect of the entire suit property covered under the deed of settlement according to the share of the parties and also to proceed to pass a final decree of partition in accordance with law, if amicably partition could not be effected by metes and bounds by the parties.

6. The plaintiffs/appellants being aggrieved by the said order of remand prefe

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top