Bharati Nandi Majumder v. Arati Taran Ghosh And 9 ORS.
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFTRIPURA AGARTALA CRPNo.113of2012 Smti.BharatiNandiMajumder
!
"# $ % &!' ......Petitioner -Versus- 1. SmtiAratiTaran(Ghosh), (
"
()
* !+!
! , - 2. SmtTapatiBiswas #
- .
! !
"# $# !.)!
#! /' 3. SmtJoyatriGhosh(Majumder), 0
&
1
!
"# $ % &!' 4. SriBudhadebGhosh,
%
!
"# $ % &!' 5. SmtParulPrabhaGhosh, ! &
2
1 ) * !+!% &! 6. SmtMinatiGhosh,
" " - 2 $34
' + $ + '
% &! $# !.)!
#! /'
7. (a) Md.SaifurRahman, (b) Mst.MahababurRahman, (c) Mst.MumtazHenaZeba, ! ! !
(d) Md.SajjadAli 5-
.* - -
......Respondents BEFORE THEHON'BLEMR.JUSTICES.TALAPATRA 6!
#!! 7 * - + ! 6!
#!
7 (
& .!) + !
+ ! * ! 722.04.2015 )! , !
! !#!7 Yes No √ JUDGMENT&ORDER(ORAL) 2 * - + ## !
#!! (
& .!)
+
!.)
+ ## !
#!
[2] "
#!! !+ 448 !
( !!!9 +
!
!)!
! ::
;< 4;:4 #
.) !
* !+! 0 !
"#
% &! 0+ * !+! "! ## ;<
4;:4 ( :;4;:4 !!!
"! ## :/4;;= [3] "
#! > ##+ !
! !
! ! ;= ;8 4;:; #
"! ## :/4;;= +!:<4!
( (+!
!!
#!! !
## ."! ## :/4;;=!
+!!
* !+!0 !
"#
!
+ ! ?:
;8 4;;= #
.) !
( 0 * !
"#
"
$ ';44;;@ -)!
! ! ?:
;8 4;;= !
! .) !
#!!
++!!
#! > #
!
!!
## !! +
!
!!!
+! A#
-)!
!#!! !
&
!+#! !
!
.#!!
"
* !+!0 !
"#
#! !
#! .+! .) !
#!! !
#!
.)A+ !
#+!:<4!
(
#
!
# ! ! ::
;< 4;:4 "
# ! #! !
! !::
;< 4;:4 7 It is found that the court intended to give a share to the convert but it was not given. So the decree may be corrected and share is given to Minati GhoshBdefendant No.6. In passing the final decree she is entitled to get
1/6th share out of total area of land is given to the defendant No. 6. Defendant No.5 will get 50% share and 50% share will go in favour of the plaintiffBrespondent and defendantNo.1B4to6. Thusrestportionwillbepartitioned.Eachwill get 1/6th instead of 1/5th share as ordered earlierinthepreliminarydecree andthe final decreepassedbytheCivilJudge(Sr.Division). The partition sold out by the defendants is to be excluded from his own share in order to remove the inconvenience for partition of the pond in the suit land the share in the pond may be sold out on market value and party underinconveniencemaytakethevalueofthe share of property. Other share holder may purchased it and if there is dispute all the shareholdersareatlibertytoselltheshareto thirdpartyanddividetheamountaspershare ofrespectiveentitlement. [4] !
!
#!! +! :<4 !
(
(
. !
+! ! ## + &!
+
) !
!
!
#!!
[5] * - + B !
) !
+! !
* !+! 0 #
!
# !
#! ! !
! .) !
! !;= ;8 4;:;"! ## :/4;;=!
..
.)!
* !+!0 !
"#
!7 "Intheplaintitwasstatedthatthedefendant No.5 being the legal heir of Nikhil Ranjan Ghosh is entitled to get 50% share and the remaining 50% will be divided between the plaintiff and other defendants equally. This plea about the exclusion of two legal heirs fromtherighttopropertyasperSection26of theHinduSuccessionActisalsonotraisedin the memo of appeal. Section 26 of the Hindu SuccessionActputsabartothesuccessionin respectofthedescendantsoftheconvertsnot
to converts at all. So, even a convert is not disqualified to be inherited, this argument of theLd.Advocatehasnoforceatall " [6] 9!
. !
+ !
#! > !
!
!
##+ ! +! :<4 !
(
(
!
## ! +#
.)!
! +!"
$ ';4 4;;@ "
## ## !
. !!
+ #
48 ;4 4;:4"
$ ';44;;@.)!
(0* !
"# % &!0+ * !+!
!!)!
#! >! ) ##
# ) + !
! +
!
# )+
+
!
+#
.)!
(0*
!
"# "! !$ ' ;4 4;;@ %
!
# ) + + !
+
.)!
#! > # ! >!
!
! +
!
+ !
+ ## # ) + + ! !
! ##!)
++ +!
+ !
# )+ 9!
## !
+ ! 48 ;4 4;:4 !
! !
.
!
#! !
) (
! :@ :4 4;::!
+ 1! )!
# !
!!
! # .!
"! ## ;<4;:4 !!
+
!
( :;4;:4+!:<4!
[7] - + ## !
#!!
.!! !
! !
## !
* !+! 0 !
"#
+ !
#A+!JayalakshmiCoelhovs.Oswald JosephCoelho,#!AIR2001SC1084
!
!! #
!
!!
!+!!!.!!
++!
) ## !
# ! !
!+ !
+! ! #!! ! +!) + # & C!
* !+!0 !
"#
.
!
! + !+ ! ).
! !! !
++!4> !
2 ++
+!
+!4>!
2++
+! ! B ) +!
-!!
!
B !!
+
!
! ) +
# ) + !
+ + . ! !
! . .) * !+! 0 !
"#
2
#
!+ ) #+! !
A+ !
+! +!:<4!
(
, !
!
! ! !
! + #
.!
!
+# .! +! :<4 !
(
D - +
.!
!!
#!
.#
A+!
+! #.)+!:<4!
"
+!:<4!
(
.
!
! ! A! !
+! ) +! ! ! ! - +
.!! !
# !
"! ## ;<4;:4!
( :;4;:4 #! > + !+ ) +! !
!
! #
!
"! ## :/ 4;;= ! + !
! !
## ! +!
A#
) .
! !
#! > !!! )
!!
<;E!
!##!) !
. !
! <;E !
! !
! < !
#! < + ++ ! - + !
# . ! . !!
[8]
& .!)
+
## !
#! >
.!!!
!!
.
! !+ + #+
. .)!
#! # !!
!
.!! !
! !
+
. #
!
#! >+ !
)!
+! !+!
++ # 6 !
+!! ! B !
B!
# !
(!7 (i) Whether without challenging the declarationmadeinthepreliminarydecreeas to the share of the joint property, the final decreecanbequestioned?
[9] "
(! !
+ # !
!
!
! .
+ !
# ) +
.#
!
!! !## # !! +
!
# .) + ! ! #
!
+ !
.
!
! # ) + #+ +
) !
# )+!
.+
!
+
+ !
# ! ! . # !!
!!
!
. !!
! !
# ) + #
"! ## :/ 4;;= + ! . + !
! ! ;= ;8 4;:; ! + ! . !
. ) !
#! > !! ! )
!
! ##!) "
!
B ! + ) ! !
B ! . !
! !
A+ # +! :<4 (
( !
# ) !+ . ! .
! )!
+!:<4!
(#
!7 152.
BClerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments,decreesorordersorerrorsarising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court eitherofitsownmotionorontheapplication ofanyoftheparties. CA+#! !
! # !
+! +
#
!
!+ !A+ !
+!
!. ! ) !
!+ !.++!A+ !
+! +!:<4!
(
"
+ F
++!
G (ii) Whether nonBdeclaration of the share in favouroftherespondentNo.6isanaccidental sliporomissionornot? [10] ++ ! !
+! !
! #
!
) + !+ !
#
!
#! > + ! . !!
.)!
## !+!
"
!
+ !
#A +! State of Punjab vs. Darshan Singh, #!AIR2003SC4179,!
+!
!7 The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scopeofSection152asifitislookingintoit forthefirsttime,forwhichtheproperremedy fortheaggrievedpartyifatallistofileappeal or revision before the higher forum or review application before the very forum, subject to thelimitationsinrespectofsuchreview. [Emphasisadded] [11] "
# +!:<4!
(
!+!
+!!
+! ! .
! + ! !.)!
!+ 9!
!
+ !
#A+!StateofPunjabvs. DarshanSingh#!AIR2003SC4179,BijayKumar Saraogi vs. State of Jharkhand, #! (2005) 7 SCC 748 ).! [12] !
(! !
* !+! 0 !
"#
A+ !
+! #
!
# ! ! !
A+ !
## ! # +! => !
!
++ + + !
A+ !
# +! :<4 !
2+ !
#!! "
# !
! [13] -# !!
+ ! + !
!
#! > ! #+ .) !
## !
+!!
+#!! +!
#!!.) "
. !+
JUDGE