Allowed

Minati Paul Choudhury v. Atindra Nath Dutta

Gauhati HC3 Jun 2020I.A.(Civil)/259/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application seeking substitution of legal heirs for a deceased respondent, the Gauhati High Court held that as there was no dispute regarding death or succession and the application was timely, the prayer was allowed and heirs were substituted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application for substitution of legal heirs of deceased respondent No.4 was allowed; heirs substituted in cause title.

Minati Paul Choudhury Vs Atindra Nath Dutta — Succession and Inheritance | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010009592018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 259/2018

¶6

1:MINATI PAUL CHOUDHURY

¶7

W/O- LT. MAKHAN PAUL CHOUDHURY, R/O- WARD NO. 2, P.M. DUTTA ROAD, DHUBRI TOWN, P.O./P.S.- DHUBRI

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1:ATINDRA NATH DUTTA

¶10

S/O- LT. UPENDRA NATH DUTTA, R/O- 757 BLOCK-P, P.O.- NEW ALIPUR, KOLKATA- 53.

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHAUHAN

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶14

ORDER

¶15

03.06.2020

¶16

Heard Mr. A. R. Shome, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms.

¶17

S. Kataki, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶18

Service of notice upon the respondent No.3 has already been dispensed

¶19

with vide order dated 12.02.2018 passed by this Court. From the office note dated 29.11.2019, it appears that notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) was received by respondent No.4(c). Since the respondent Nos. 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) are the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.4 i.e. Tapas

¶20

Page No.# 2/3

¶21

Paul Choudhury and live in the same domestic household, I am of the view that acceptance of notice by respondent No.4(c) on behalf of the respondent Nos.4(a) and 4(b) would be sufficient to presume service of notice upon the said respondents as well. None has, however, appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c).

¶22

This I.A. has been filed under Order XXII Rule 3 read with section 151 of the CPC with a prayer for substitution of the legal heirs of respondent No.4, who had expired on 02.11.2017 leaving behind the respondent Nos. 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) as the surviving legal heirs. Since there is no dispute about the death of the respondent No.4, Tapas Paul Choudhury as well as the fact that the respondent Nos. 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) are his surviving legal heirs and the application has been filed within the period of limitation, I am of the view that the prayer for substitution deserves to be allowed.

¶23

Ms. Kataky, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, has also fairly submits that she does not have any objection if the prayer for substitution made in this I.A. is allowed by this Court.

¶24

In view of the above, the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.4, as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the application, stands substituted in his place.

¶25

Registry to make necessary endorsement in the cause title of the revision petition.

¶26

This I.A. stands disposed of.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Page No.# 3/3

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Minati Paul Choudhury v. Atindra Nath Dutta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minati Paul Choudhury v. Atindra Nath Dutta

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

Govind Prasad Prakash Chand Vs Puspa Devi Jain and Anr.

Davraj Dutta Vs Smti. Alaka Goswami @ Aruna @ Alaka Bordoloi

The Iffko-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smti. Nibha Devi and 2 Ors.

Smti Bonita B. Dutta Vs M/S Magus Construction Private Limited and 5 Ors.

Mukul Lahkar Vs M/S. Om Infracon Pvt. Ltd.

Uddhab Das @ Uddab Das Vs M/S May Fair Developers and Builders and Anr.