Remanded

Tirtha Nath Yadav v. Partha Samanta and Anr.

Calcutta HC2 Dec 2024CO/2405/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revisional application, the High Court at Calcutta set aside a City Civil Court order allowing a claimant's addition as an heir without enquiry. The High Court directed the lower court to make an enquiry regarding the claimant's agnatic relation with the deceased and dispose of the matter expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The observation regarding the relationship between the opposite party no.2 and the deceased was set aside; the lower Judge was directed to make an enquiry and give parties an opportunity to adduce evi

Tirtha Nath Yadav Vs Partha Samanta and Anr. — Property and Title | Calcutta HC (2024)

¶1

12 02.12.2024 Ct. No.22 pg.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

CO 2405 of 2023

¶4

Tirth Nath Yadav Vs.

¶5

Partha Samanta & Anr.

¶6

Mr. Saptansu Basu, Sr. Counsel Mr. Partha Pratim Roy Mr. Rahul Karmakar Mr. Gulam Karim Chowdhury … For the petitioner

¶7

Mrs. Sabita Mukherjee Roy Choudhury Mr. Debnath Ganguly Mr. Sanket Dan Ms. Sneha Singh Mr. Supriyo Dutta

¶8

… For the opposite party No.2

¶9

This revisional application has been filed assailing the order dated 2^nd May, 2023 passed in connection with O.C. No.21 of 2018 wherein the learned Judge, Bench-V, City Civil Court, Calcutta allowed an application filed by one Debika Chatterjee/opposite party no.2 herein claiming herself as a person having agnatic relation with the deceased Swapan Kumar Mallick, the testator of the Will.

¶10

The application was contested by the petitioner contending, inter alia, that according to Will, Swapan Kumar Mallick had no near relatives prescribed either in Class-I or Class-II under the Hindu Succession Act, except his wife. Learned Judge considered one application filed by Debika Chatterjee/opposite party no.2 herein who claims

¶11

¶12

to be in an agnatic relation with the deceased Swapan Kumar Mallick, ignoring the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn my attention to the provision of Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and submits that necessary enquiry ought to have been made by the learned Judge before passing any order on the issue.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 has submitted that albeit there is no specific reason assigned in the order itself but the opposite party no.2 has agnatic relation with Swapan Kumar Mallick.

¶15

Considering all facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the learned Judge relied upon a genesis prepared in a white paper filed on behalf of Debika Chatterjee/opposite party no.2 herein, and passed an order allowing addition accordingly without making any sort of enquiry.

¶16

On that score, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Judge suffers from absolute illegality as it was not supported by any reason, that too without making any enquiry regarding the issue before him.

¶17

Regard being had to the above, the observation with regard to the relationship between Debika Chatterjee/

¶18

¶19

opposite party no.2 herein and the deceased Swapan Kumar Mallick stands set aside.

¶20

Learned Judge is requested to make an enquiry with regard to the claim of Debika Chatterjee/opposite party no.2 herein in terms of written objection filed on behalf of the petitioner after giving an opportunity to the parties to the proceedings to adduce evidence, if necessary.

¶21

Learned Judge is also requested to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.

¶22

With the aforesaid observation, the revisional application, being CO 2405 of 2023, stands disposed of.

¶23

All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶24

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities.

Tirtha Nath Yadav v. Partha Samanta and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tirtha Nath Yadav v. Partha Samanta and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Loknath Ghosh Vs Sadhan Ghosh and Ors.

Shyamal Paul and Anr. Vs Birendranath Halder and Ors.

Union Bank of India Vs Jayanta Dasgupta

Arup Chatterjee and Anr. Vs Pradip Kumar Ghosh

Toton Sarkar @ Tatan Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Yasika Basnett and Another Vs Sleepkart LLP