Partly allowed¶¶16

Smt. Arati Murmu & Ors. v. Santi Bala Routh

Calcutta HC1 Apr 2026FA/2/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arati Murmu & Ors. v. Santi Bala Routh & Ors.; F.A. No. 2 of 2003 (decided 01.04.2026; Rajasekhar Mantha, J.; Rai Chattopadhyay, J.); appeal against judgment/decree dated 26.08.1994 in Title Suit No. 49 of 1994; partition of properties of Late Renu Bala Dasi; dismissal for want of challenge/cancellation of Title Deeds; expunging of Trial Court observations on non-proof of due execution of deeds; appeal allowed in part; connected applications disposed; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part and disposed of; all Trial Court observations that defendants could not demonstrate due execution of the Title Deeds expunged; parties left to seek appropriate remedies against one another; pending connected applications disposed of; no order as to costs. ¶¶16

Smt. Arati Murmu & Ors. Vs Santi Bala Routh — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's findings that the appellants/defendants could not demonstrate due execution of the Title Deeds in their favour should stand, or be expunged, given that the plaintiff neither challenged nor sought cancellation of those deeds and the suit was dismissed principally on that account.

¶¶12

Court's answer

This Court finds that the Trial Judge's findings against the appellants/defendants that they could not demonstrate the execution of the Deeds in their favour would not be germane any further once the Trial Judge holds that the plaintiff has not been able to demonstrate that the properties have been transferred in favour of the appellants.

¶¶12

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiff/respondent was required to seek cancellation of the Deeds executed in favour of the defendants/appellants, and that requirement was the principal ground for dismissal of the suit.

¶¶13

Key takeaways

This Court directs expunging of all the observations of the Trial Court that the concerned defendant could not demonstrate due execution of the Title Deeds in their favour.ratio¶¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition suit (Title Suit No. 49 of 1994) over the properties of Late Renu Bala Dasi, brought by persons claiming to be her legal heirs, had been dismissed on 26th August, 1994 chiefly because the plaintiff did not challenge or seek cancellation of the Title Deeds transferring portions of the properties to the contesting defendants/appellants; the Trial Judge had also, unnecessarily, recorded that some defendants could not prove due execution of the deeds. On First Appeal (F.A. No. 2 of 2003, decided 01.04.2026 before Rajasekhar Mantha, J. and Rai Chattopadhyay, J.), the Court held such findings not germane once the plaintiff's failure was established, directed expunging of all Trial Court observations regarding due execution of the Title Deeds, allowed the appeal in part and disposed of it along with pending connected applications, leaving the parties to pursue appropriate remedies, with no order as to costs.

¶1

01.04.2026. Item No. 20. Court No. 13

¶2

¶3

F.A. No. 2 of 2003 With IA NO: CAN/3/2001(Old CAN/1895/2001) And IA No.CAN/5/2015 (Old CAN/8135/2015)

¶4

Smt. Arati Murmu & Ors. Versus Santi Bala Routh & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Rabindra Nath Mahato, Mr. Aritra Shankar Ray.

¶6

..For the appellants.

¶7

The subject appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26^th August, 1994 passed in Title Suit No. 49 of 1994. The appellant herein is the defendant no.1 in the said suit.

¶8

The suit was for partition of the properties of Late Renu Bala Dasi, by the person claiming to be her legal heirs. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the respondent/plaintiff has not challenged the certain Title Deeds by which the portions of the properties have been transferred in favour of the contesting defendants/appellants.

¶9

While doing so, the learned Trial Judge has incorrectly and unnecessarily held that some defendants including the appellants herein could not prove due execution of the Title Deeds in their favour.

¶10

This Court finds that the findings of the Trial Judge against the appellants/defendants herein that they could not demonstrate the execution of the Deeds

¶11

¶12

in their favour would not be germane any further after the Trial Judge holds that the plaintiff has not been able to demonstrate that the properties have been transferred in favour of the appellants.

¶13

Indeed the plaintiff/respondent was required to seek cancellation of the Deeds executed in favour of the defendants/appellants herein. That was the principal ground for dismissal of the suit.

¶14

Having regard to the above, this Court directs expunging of all the observations of the Trial Court, that the concerned defendant could not demonstrate due execution of the Title Deeds in their favour.

¶15

The parties are left to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law against one and another.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations, F.A. 2 of 2003 is allowed in part and hereby disposed of.

¶17

In view of disposal of the appeal itself, all the pending connected applications are disposed of.

¶18

There will be no order as to costs.

¶19

All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶20

( Rajasekhar Mantha, J. )

¶21

( Rai Chattopadhyay, J. )

Smt. Arati Murmu & Ors. v. Santi Bala Routh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Arati Murmu & Ors. v. Santi Bala Routh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asiad Detective Bureau and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

The State of West Bengal through Land Acquisition Collector Vs Sujata Banejee and Ors.

Pioneer Co-Operative Car Parking Servicing and Construction Society Limited Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Abdul Ohab & Ors. Vs Rokiya Bibi & Ors.

Debashis Dhar Vs Rima Dhar

The General Manager, South Eastern Railway Administration Sera Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd, Bokaro Steel Plant.