Harendra Kumar Debnath v. Ashir Mohammed And 7teen ORS
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFTRIPURA AGARTALA R.S.A.No.44of2009 1. Smt.ShyamaliDebnath
2. Smt.SwapnaDebnath(Malakar)
3. ShriMadhabDebnath,
!!!!Appellants ** As per order dated 21.11.2012 passed in CM. Appl. No. 115 of 2012, the appellants No.1,2 & 3 has been substituted as the legal heirs of the sole appellant, namely, Lt. Harendra Kr.Debnath -Versus- 1. AshirMohammed, "
2. RezualHaque, "" 3. SayadulHaque, "" 4. MaizulHaque, ""
5. Smti.SushamaDebi,
# $
6. Smt.KokilaDebi,
% &
7. SriSukhamoyDebnath, 8. Smt.SumatiDebi, ' %(
"
9. ShriBoloramDebnath,
10. ShriSubrataDebnath, ' " ) *" + &
& 11. ShriBireshDebnath, 12. ShriBisweswarDebnath, 13. Smt.DraupadiDebialiasDorpadiDebi, 14. Smt.PratimaDebi,
, 15. Smt.UshaRaniDebi, '
16. Smt.UmaRaniDebi, " &
17. Smt.UnmadiniDebi, -
.
" 18. Smt.RamaniBalaDebi,
'
............Respondents BEFORE THEHON'BLEMR.JUSTICES.TALAPATRA : /) /)
: - /) :07.04.2015 0 / &1 0
2 : YES NO √ JUDGMENT&ORDER(ORAL) '&
) 344 -- (
) 54467448 / 37 7448 &
) 1 ) [2] " " - " 9 : (1) Whether the learned first appellate court committed error, in the eye of law, by holding thatinviewoftheprovisionsprescribedbythe HinduSuccessionAct,1956andHinduMarriage Act, 1955, the second wife of the deceased Surendra Debnath was entitled to inherit the propertiesbelongingtolateSurendraDebnath.
(2) Whether the learned first appellate court committed error by holding that the said deed executed by the second wife of late Surendra Debnathwasvalidintheeyeoflaw? [3]
) )
& "
9 3
9 7 ))
"
)
/ & [4] ) 9
)
/ & ) / )
)
) ;" )/ )
" $ ) "
& ) )
( ) "
) ; )
<=. % 7> --
" (
( / & ) [5]
( 544?7444
/ 43 366@) ) $.
) $.. )
// & / 37483688 A; 6 " ) ; (
)
544?7448
" (
)
) 6? --
& 7? 7444 ) / (
) 544?744? "
) ) )
?*;+ "
) &
<=.%7> -- AdditionalIssue "Whether the deed dated 12.08.1988 is binding uponthedefendantNo.1." [6]
& ( 4846744?
) )
: "Accordingly, I find that the suit land was not amicably partitioned between the coLsharers. I also find that a portion of the dwelling house has fallen within the boundary of the suit land. So,inviewofthelegalpropositionthisExibitL9, i.e., the deed dated 12.03.1988 is not binding upon the defendant No.1. Hence, this issue is decidedagainsttheplaintiffs. Now the case record should be sent to the Appellate Court, i.e., learned Judge, Fast Track Court, North Tripura, Kailashahar as per provisionofOrderXLIRule25oftheC.P.C." [7]
/ )/ )
" )
) & ( 3>37744? 7? 7444 "
) " 5* + )
: (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its presentform? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs brought all the properties of common origin into record for partitionamongtherespectiveshareholders? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get anyreliefandifso,uptowhatextent? [8] 2 ) ) ( ;
& ) 4846744?
" & ) &
( 784?7445 )
) ) ) ?*;+"
))
)
<=.%7> -- - & ( 4@477448
/ *+366@ )
& ) / : It has also been found that a portion of the dwellinghousehasfallenwithintheboundaryof instant suit land. So, in view of legal position ExihibitL9, i.e., deed 12.08.1988 has been decided to be not binding upon the defendant No.1.Thisdecisionhasnotyetbeensetasideby appellate court. As the ExhibitL9 is not binding upondefendantNo.1andasthereisnoamicable partitionoftheleftestateofSurendraDebnath, theinstantsuitfiledbytheplaintiffisclearlynot maintainableinitspresentform.
"
)
"
" & ) [9]
& 37 7448 )" "
/
<=. % 7> -- / & / "
"
<=.%7> -- "
"
)
& - )"
) "
/
/ ) ) ) 377448 )
7?7447 ) &
)
[10] '& " (
) / : Fromthecopyofthejudgmentofobjectioncase No.16and18(Exhibit'13')Ifindthatdefendant No.3filedobjectionagainsttherecordingofthe land in the name of Harendra Kumar Debnath alone in Khatian No.49 and Khatian on.407. Afterconsideringallaspectsitwasorderedthat Khatian No.49shall berecordedinthe nameof Harendra Kumar Debnath, Sushma Debi, SubhanginiDebi,SureshNathandNareshNath. ThusagainIholdthatthedefendantNos.2and 3hadabsoluterighttotransfertheirownshare oflandfromKhatianNo.49.SimilarlyIholdthat defendant No.3 also had absolute right to transferthelandmeasuring.45acrestoplaintiff No.1videdeeddated12L08L88(Exhibit'10'). [11]
) " & " (
) / : The plaintiffs No.2,3 and 4 have acquired right and title over the C.S. Plot No.1845, land measuring .88 acres, C.S. Plot No.1926 (new), 1597/1945(old),landmeasuring.28acres,C.S. Plot No.2031, land measuring .26 acres which we recorded under Khatian No.475 and they furtheracquiredrightandtitleovertheC.S.Plot No.408 (new), land measuring .17 acres, C.S. plot No.414, land measuring .52 acres which were recorded under Khatian No.49 of MoujaL Ichapur. [12] " )
"& ) &
. ) )" ) )
/
"
) )
)
)
. / 3)9 /
- @37
@35* + " @> )
?87
) )
) " & " )
/ )
& " " & ) .
) " ) & "
" (
" & ) ) (
&
) )
")& " (
) )) / & " )
) ) " () $) & / )) 75
)) ) 36>? 4646744> &
)) *"
" +) 744> ) 75
)) ) ' - ) ) /
; & &
$ 4C43366@ , $"
) 75
)) ) /
: 23.
.L Where a Hindu intestate has left survivinghimorherbothmaleandfemaleheirs specifiedinclassIoftheScheduleandhisorher property includes a dwellingLhouse wholly occupiedbymembersofhisorherfamily,then, notwithstandinganythingcontainedinthisAct, the right of any such female heir to claim partition of the dwellingLhouse shall not arise until the male heirs choose to divide their respective shares therein; but the female heir shallbeentitledtoarightofresidencetherein. Provided that where such female heir is a daughter, she shall be entitled to a right of residence in the dwellingLhouse only if she is unmarried or has been deserted by or has separatedfromherhusbandorisawidow. [Emphasisadded]
[13] ) 75 ) ) )" / & &
" / "
" )
[14]
) )
/ &
"
" )
B / "
&
) / - )) ) ) /
)
& " " )
"
/ & 4646744> )"
) ) " )
" -
& ) & (
) 4@477448 )
) 37483688
3 . &
3 / &" 2 ) ) / / & )" 43* + 366@
"
& " '
& " ( & ))
& (
) [15]
/
/
() / 4646744> D )"
/ ) $.
) $..
) ) /
)) *"
" + ) 744> " ) ; ) &
)"
=-% "" &
) JUDGE