Held that the ad interim injunction was sustainable given the challenge to the deed of gift. The Court expedited disposal by mandating the lower court to determine the suit within two years.
Appeal, CAN 1 of 2020 and CAN 2 of 2020 disposed. Liberty granted to expedite suit; lower court to decree within two years.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
06.10.2020
Court No. 8 Item No.2 Subha
In The High Court At Calcutta Civil appellate jurisdiction Appellate Side
F. M. A. T No.330 of 2020
Sri Saibal Kumar Sinha -vsSri Ashish Kumar Sinha and 2 ors. with IA No. CAN No.1 of 2020 (Old No. CAN No.2902 of 2020) (CAN 1/20 is not in the file) with CAN 2 of 2020
Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, sr. adv Mr. Arnab Mukherjee …for the appellant.
Mr. Joydip Kar, Mr. Sourav Kumar Mukherjee ..for the plaintiff/respondent no.1.
The point involved in this appeal is very short. With the consent of learned appearing counsel, we treat this appeal as on the day’s list and dispose of the same by the order dispensing with all formalities.
This appeal arises from a judgment and order dated 1st February, 2020 passed by the learned court below in a Partition and Administration suit affirming an ad interim order of injunction made by the said court on 7th January, 2015 restraining the appellant from transferring or otherwise dealing with the suit property.
The appellant, one of the sons of Anima Rani
2
Sinha since deceased, one of the parties in the said suit claims that by executing a deed of gift dated 21st August, 2013 his mother transferred the entire suit property to him. She died on 27th June. 2014.
At the time of passing of the ad interim order it was a simple partition and administration suit. Subsequently in 2018, the plaint was amended challenging the deed of gift as void.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that this order of injunction should be vacated, as there is no merit in the challenge to the deed of gift.
We are of the opinion that since the deed of gift is under challenge in the suit, the order of injunction is prima facie sustainable. However, it is absolutely necessary to expedite the suit. We give liberty to the appellant to take all steps before the court below for the purpose of expeditious disposal of the suit.
The learned court below shall on such steps taken by the appellant endavour so that the suit is decreed not later than two years from date. It will be open to Mr. Mukherjee’s client to make a claim before the learned court below to compensate him for the loss of enjoyment of the property in the event the plaintiff/respondent fails in his challenge to the said deed of gift. If and when such claim is made the
3
learned court below shall consider the same in
accordance with law.
Accordingly, the appeal (FMAT 330 of 2020 and the connected applications(CAN 1 of 2020 & CAN 2 of 2020) are disposed of.
[I.P. Mukerji, J]
[Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the ad interim order of injunction restraining the appellant from transferring the suit property should be vacated pending the challenge to the deed of gift.
Whether an accelerated timeline should be imposed for the disposal of the underlying partition and administration suit.
Sri Saibal Kumar Sinha
Sri Ashish Kumar Sinha
2 ors.
I.P. Mukerji
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
