w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Sandhya Basu Mallick & Another v/s Pramatha Nath Sen & Another

    TA. No. 25 of 2018, GA. No. of 2018 & CS. No. 540 of 1988

    Decided On, 26 October 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta


    For the Appearing Parties: Sudip Deb, Sunil Chakraborty, Sumitava Chakraborty, Advocates.

Judgment Text

The Court : This interlocutory application is being moved pursuant to leave granted by Hon’ble Justice Soumen Sen on 12th October, 2018.

This is a Partition Suit involving four siblings; two sisters and two brothers.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner no. 1 relies upon a preliminary decre

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

e passed by this Court on 15th December, 2016 by which inter alia it was recorded that the parties to this application would be entitled to 1/4th share each in respect of the immovable properties left by their father late Manmatha Nath Sen specifically the properties mentioned in Annexure A to the plaint and the movable properties mentioned in Annexure D. Manmatha Nath Sen died intestate and the suit related to partition of his properties amongst his heirs in accordance with the provisions under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Counsel relies on a further recording in the preliminary decree that the properties in question forming Annexure D are presently in the custody of the defendant no. 1, including jewellery and movables.

Counsel submits that although the decree was passed in December 2016, her brother, the defendant no. 1 did not take any steps in pursuance of the said preliminary decree, as a result of which the petitioner no. 1 was constrained to write a letter to the defendant no. 1 on 11th October, 2018. By the said letter, the first petitioner expressed her apprehension that the defendant no. 1 was trying to sell and use the movable properties mentioned in Annexure D for the personal benefit of the defendant no. 1 and reminded the defendant no. 1 of the verbal assurance given by the latter that he would take steps for amicable partition of the subject properties. Counsel submits that this letter has not been responded to and submits that there is a reasonable apprehension that the first defendant may proceed to sell and dispose of the properties which are the subject matter of the preliminary decree. Counsel submits that the defendant no. 2 passed away sometime after the preliminary decree was passed in December, 2016.

Counsel produces a letter dated 22nd October, 2018 informing the defendant no. 1 that the matter would be taken up for consideration before this Court today and relies upon a track report that the letter was delivered to the first defendant on 24th October, 2018.

No one appears for the defendant no. 1 today despite such service.

Having heard counsel for the first petitioner and the effect of the preliminary decree passed by this Court on 15th December, 2016 by which the right of the other parties to this application to 1/4th of the properties has been decided, this Court is satisfied that a limited order of injunction can be issued on the first defendant restraining him from dealing with the properties mentioned in Annexure D of the plaint which is at page 37 of the present application in any manner howsoever including selling or disposing of the same to any third party or otherwise. This order will remain operative until 15th November, 2018. The defendant no. 1 as well as other parties to this application will be at liberty to have the instant matter heard for further orders before the Regular Bench.

Already A Member?