Indrani Chattopadhyay Vs Anjana Tarafdar and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

Indrani Chattopadhyay Vs Anjana Tarafdar and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who claims to be the heir of the deceased defendant No.2 and asserts that the right to sue survives upon her, ought to be impleaded as a party-defendant in Title Suit No.408 of 2016 by application under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Court's answer

Because defendant No.2 transferred the suit property to defendant No.3 by a registered deed of gift during his lifetime, the right, title and interest of defendant No.2 passed to defendant No.3, and the estate of the deceased defendant No.2 is now represented by the transferee (defendant No.3); consequently the petitioner is neither a necessary party nor a proper party, and her presence is not necessary for adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit.

Ratio / Principle

The learned trial judge assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC, and for that reason this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Article 227 application by Indrani Chattopadhyay, heir of the deceased defendant No.2, against the order dated April 5, 2025 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 2nd Court, Serampore, District-Hooghly, which had rejected her prayer to be impleaded as party-defendant in Title Suit No.408 of 2016 under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC. Counsel for the petitioner conceded that defendant No.2 had, during his lifetime, transferred the suit property to defendant No.3 by a registered deed of gift dated September 5, 2014. The Court held that by virtue of that transfer the estate of the deceased defendant No.2 is represented by the transferee, defendant No.3; hence the petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party and her presence is unnecessary for adjudication. Finding the trial court's reasons cogent, the Court declined to interfere: C.O. 1576 of 2025 stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)

D/L- 20 08/05/2025 Ct. No.-6 Aritra C.O. 1576 of 2025

Indrani Chattopadhyay Vs. Smt. Anjana Tarafdar & Ors.

Mr. Partha Pratim Roy Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee Mr. Prasanta Kr. Roy .…for the petitioner

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the heir of the defendant No.2 and is directed against an order dated April 5, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 2^nd Court, Serampore, District-Hooghly in Title Suit No.408 of 2016.

By the order impugned the prayer of the petitioner for being impleaded as party-defendant in the said suit by an application under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure stood rejected.

Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the heir of the defendant No.2 and the right to sue survives upon the petitioner upon the death of the defendant No.2.

Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, in course of his argument, in his usual fairness, did not dispute that the defendant No.2 during his lifetime has transferred the suit property in favour of

2

the defendant No.3 by a registered deed of gift dated September 5, 2014.

By virtue of the said transfer the right, title and interest of the defendant No.2 has been transferred in favour of the defendant No.3 and, therefore, the estate of the deceased defendant No.2 is now being represented by the transferee i.e. defendant No.3. In view thereof, the petitioner cannot be said to be a necessary party nor a proper party in the suit. The presence of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit. The learned trial judge has assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

For such reason this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned.

Accordingly, CO 1576 of 2025 stands dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)