Anima Rani Sam Vs Renuka Debi & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Anima Rani Sam Vs Renuka Debi & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part and disposed of: Trial Court directed to pass and modify the preliminary decree for the 'B' schedule property reflecting the plaintiff's lawful share after considering the two deeds of gift and her sale of 62 cents of land to defendant nos.10 to 12; no order as to costs; certified copy to be supplied on compliance with formalities.

Issue for consideration

Declaration and distribution of shares between the plaintiff and the defendants in respect of the 'B' schedule property, including the extent of the plaintiff's share after accounting for the two deeds of gift by which Narayan Chandra Mondal acquired Madan Mondal's interest.

Court's answer

The share claimed by the defendants under the two deeds of gift does not cover the entire 'B' schedule property; since Narayan Chandra Mondal acquired Madan Mondal's interest by the gift deeds, the plaintiff would be entitled to the remaining share, i.e., the share of Govinda Chandra Mondal, in the absence of the plaintiff establishing that the said property was purchased by her father Govinda Chandra Mondal.

Ratio / Principle

It cannot be disputed that Govinda Chandra Mondal had a share in the 'B' schedule property, and the plaintiff's share must be determined taking into consideration the two gift deeds by which Narayan Chandra Mondal had acquired interest.

Key takeaways

Record-of-rights carries only a presumptive value with regard to possession and does not create any right, title or interest of the parties named therein.obiter¶10
The Trial Court is directed to pass a preliminary decree determining the share the plaintiff is entitled to in law in respect of the 'B' schedule property after taking into consideration the gift-deed position and the plaintiff's sale of 62 cents to defendant nos.10 to 12, and subsequently to modify the preliminary decree accordingly.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

FA 98 of 2012, Smt. Anima Rani Sam v. Smt. Renuka Debi & Ors. (decided 10.04.2025; bench: Soumen Sen, J. and Smita Das De, J.). Defendants/respondents remained absent despite notice. Appeal turned on declaration and distribution of shares in the 'B' schedule property. Defendant nos.1 to 9, legal heirs of Narayan Chandra Mondal, claimed a 10 annas 13 gondas 1 kata 1 kranti share on the strength of deeds of gift no.1725 of 1966 and no.861 of 1961, by which Narayan Chandra Mondal acquired a portion from Madan Mondal. Held: the gifts did not cover the whole property; Govinda Chandra Mondal indisputably had a share, and with Madan Mondal's interest acquired by Narayan Chandra Mondal, the plaintiff would be entitled to the remaining (Govinda's) share unless she established purchase by her father Govinda Chandra Mondal; record-of-rights is only presumptive and creates no title. Trial Court directed to pass, and thereafter modify, the preliminary decree accordingly, factoring in the plaintiff's sale of 62 cents to defendant nos.10 to 12. Appeal allowed in part and disposed of; no order as to costs.

10.04.2025 Sl No.4 Court No.8 (gc)

FA 98 of 2012

Smt. Anima Rani Sam Vs.

Smt. Renuka Debi & Ors.

Mr. Rudra Prasad Motilal

… for the Appellant.

In spite of repeated opportunities being given to the defendants/respondents to appear and contest the proceeding, it can be presumed that they are not inclined to contest the proceeding as they have remained absent in spite of service of notice.

The short point required to be decided in this appeal is with regard to the declaration and distribution of the shares amongst the plaintiff and the defendants in respect of “B” schedule property. The learned Civil Judge has recorded that the defendants have taken a specific plea that after demise of Felaram Mondal, his three sons, namely, Govinda Chandra Mondal, Madan Mondal and Narayan Chandra Mondal became the owners and they were in possession of undivided having 1/3^rd share each. The defendants have produced two deeds of gift bearing

2

no.1725 for the year 1966 and 861 for the year 1961 to show that Madan Mondal had transferred a portion of the “B” schedule property to Narayan Chandra Mondal and, accordingly, the defendant nos.1 to 9 being the legal heirs of Narayan Chandra Mondal became the owners of 10 annas 13 gondas 1 kata 1 kranti share in respect of “B” schedule property. The share as claimed by the defendants does not cover the entire share of “B” schedule property. Govinda Chandra Mondal and Narayan Chandra Mondal were the co-owners of the property is not in dispute, although the record-of-rights is only having a presumptive value with regard to the possession and it does not create any right, title and interest of the parties named in the said record-of-rights. The fact remains that Govinda Chandra Mondal was having 1/3^rd share in the said property. By reason of acquiring interest of Madan Mondal by Narayan Chandra Mondal by virtue of two several deeds of gift, the plaintiff would be entitled to the remaining share in the property, meaning thereby, the share of Govinda Chandra Mondal in absence of the plaintiff establishing that the said property was purchased by her father Govinda

3

Chandra Mondal. Moreover, it appears that the plaintiff has stated in the plaint that the plaintiff sold away 62 cents of land in favour of the defendant nos.10 to 12 out of entire “B” schedule property and at present the plaintiff has .77 acre of land in respect of the “B” schedule property.

In view thereof, the Trial Court is directed to pass a preliminary decree to the extent of share the plaintiff would be entitled to in law in respect of “B” schedule property after taking into consideration the aforesaid facts. It cannot be disputed that Govinda Chandra Mondal had a share in the “B” schedule property and the share of the plaintiff has to be determined after taking into consideration of the two gift deeds by which Narayan Chandra Mondal had acquired interest. The plaintiff also claimed to have sold 62 cents of land in favour of the defendant nos.10 to 12. The appeal is allowed in part.

The Trial Court is required to modify the preliminary decree in respect of “B” schedule property in terms of the aforesaid direction. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

4

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

(Soumen Sen, J.)

(Smita Das De, J.)