Dismissed¶16

Kedli Saha Alias Kedali Saha v. Anil Kumar Saha and Ors.

Calcutta HC4 May 2026FMA/186/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Probate — receiver application by objector dismissed — appeal dismissed summarily under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC — no specific plea of misappropriation of usufructs, no averment of tenants or income from property — subsisting status quo injunction — no illegality or perversity in Trial Judge's findings — accounts as lesser relief refused absent foundational pleading — merits of testamentary proceedings left open — FMA No. 186 of 2026, decided May 4, 2026.

What did the court decide?

The receiver application contained no specific instance of misappropriation of the usufructs of the property, and not a single averment indicating tenants in respect of the property or how the property fetches income; the application therefore lacked the necessary foundational pleading. ¶9

Kedli Saha Alias Kedali Saha Vs Anil Kumar Saha and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Trial Judge's dismissal of the objector/appellant's application for appointment of receiver in the probate proceeding suffered from illegality or perversity warranting appellate interference. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

¶9

Ratio / Principle

In view of the absence of specific pleadings, no illegality or perversity was found in the findings of the learned Trial Judge dismissing the receiver application.

¶12

Key takeaways

Since no alternative prayer for accounts was made in the application and the foundational fact of any source of income from the property was not averred, the Trial Judge had no scope to grant the lesser relief of accounts on the basis of the pleadings.ratio¶14
The Court clarified that it had not entered into the merits of the contentions raised in the testamentary proceedings, and the probate court remains at liberty to consider them in accordance with law uninfluenced by the present appeal or the observations made.obiter¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal (FMA No. 186 of 2026) by the objector in a probate proceeding against dismissal of her application for appointment of receiver — dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The receiver application pleaded no specific instance of misappropriation of the usufructs of the property and contained no averment of tenancy or of the property fetching income; a subsisting status quo injunction was noted by the Trial Judge. Finding no illegality or perversity in the Trial Judge's conclusions, the appellate court declined interference. The lesser relief of directing accounts of income was held unavailable, as no such alternative prayer was made and the foundational fact of any source of income was not averred. The Court expressly left open the merits of the testamentary contentions for the probate court to decide independently.

¶1

M/L.24. May 4, 2026. MNS.

¶2

FMA No. 186 of 2026 +

¶3

CAN 1 of 2026

¶4

Smt. Kedli Saha alias Kedali Saha Vs. Anil Kumar Saha and others

¶5

Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh, Adv.

¶6

… for the appellant.

¶7

The present challenge has been preferred against an order whereby the application filed by the objector/appellant in a probate proceeding for appointment of receiver has been dismissed.

¶8

The learned Trial Judge proceeded on the premise that there is already a subsisting order of injunction ( status quo ) and that no specific instances of the alleged misappropriation of property, on which premise the application could be entertained, was disclosed in the application.

¶9

From a perusal of the application for appointment of receiver, we find that there is no specific instance of misappropriation of the usufructs of the property pleaded therein. Moreover, there is not a single averment in the application for appointment of receiver filed in the testamentary court to indicate that there are tenants in

¶10

¶11

respect of the property or as to how the property is fetching income.

¶12

Thus, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of the learned trial Judge.

¶13

During arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submits that even accounts of the income from the suit property have not been directed to be filed by the testamentary court.

¶14

However, apart from the fact that no such alternative prayer was made in the application, since the foundational fact of there being any source of income from the property has not even been averred in the receiver application, there was no scope for the learned trial Jude to consider the grant of such lesser relief of accounts on the basis of the pleadings.

¶15

Hence, since we do not find any illegality in the impugned order, there is no scope of interference.

¶16

Accordingly, FMA No. 186 of 2026 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶17

Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2026 stands dismissed as well.

¶18

We make it clear that we have not entered into the merits of the contentions raised by the parties in the testamentary proceedings and the probate court shall be at liberty to consider the same in accordance with law without being influenced in any manner by the present appellant or the observations made above.

¶19

¶20

Urgent certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

¶21

(Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

Kedli Saha Alias Kedali Saha v. Anil Kumar Saha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kedli Saha Alias Kedali Saha v. Anil Kumar Saha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swastika Guha and Ors. Vs Nirmal Kumar Sen and Anr.

Jagadish Prasad Goenka and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Kareena Properties Private Limited Vs Late Alhaj Abdul Karim Since Deceased and His Legal Heirs Afsari Begum and Ors.

Amit Majumder Vs Soma Majumder

Souren Ghosh Vs United Commercial Bank and Ors.

Souren Ghosh Vs United Commercial Bank