Calcutta High Court Dismisses Partition Suit as Time-Barred, Declares 1979 Deed Valid: “The Registered Partition Deed of 1979 Has Not Been Proved to Be Void”
Kiran Raj
The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar, has allowed an appeal and dismissed a suit challenging the validity of a partition deed executed in 1979. The court held that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claims regarding fraud and the omission of a legal heir's share. The judgment sets aside a prior judgement by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court at Barasat, which had granted a preliminary decree for partition.
The dispute arose over a property originally co-owned by Indumati Mallick and Narayan Rakshit. The plaintiffs contended that Indumati had a daughter, Lalita, in addition to her son Gopeswar, and that Lalita’s share was omitted in the 1979 partition deed. According to the plaintiffs, Lalita predeceased Indumati, leaving behind her daughters, Kamala and Ashrukana, as legal heirs. Kamala, one of the plaintiffs, thus claimed inheritance rights from both her alleged mother Lalita and her husband Narayan.
Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi High Court Order, Sets Precedent on Staying Discharge Under CrPC
The defendants, on the other hand, argued that Lalita was not Indumati’s daughter and that Gopeswar was her sole heir. They contended that the partition deed had been duly executed and acted upon by all parties, including Kamala, and that the suit was time-barred.
During the proceedings, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the 1979 partition deed was void and claimed partition of the property. The trial court granted the reliefs sought, observing that the omission of Lalita’s share rendered the deed void. The defendants challenged this decision before the High Court.
The High Court examined whether the challenge to the partition deed was time-barred. It referred to Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, which allows a person to seek the cancellation of a void or voidable document if it causes serious injury. It noted that under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, the suit should have been filed within three years from the date when the facts entitling the plaintiff to challenge the document first became known.
The court recorded:
“The partition deed was executed and registered on April 7, 1979. The original plaintiff No.1 Kamala, as P.W.1, in her cross-examination dated November 7, 2014, categorically admitted that she had signed the partition deed and was present throughout the registration of the same. Thus, the cause of action for the suit arose on April 7, 1979 itself, whereas the suit was filed on March 7, 2013, and is, thus, palpably time-barred.”
The court also noted that the allegations of fraud were vague and unsupported by specific details as required under Order VI Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. Since the plaintiffs themselves had sought a declaration that the deed was void due to fraud, the burden of proof was on them. The court stated:
“The plaintiffs specifically sought a declaration and also because the document could not be said to be void ab initio, since the declaration was sought on the ground of fraud being perpetrated which, only if proved, would make the instrument voidable.”
Additionally, the court dismissed the argument that the exclusion of Lalita’s share rendered the partition deed void. It found that Kamala, who was purportedly Lalita’s daughter and had inherited her interest, was a signatory to the partition deed and had actively participated in its registration.
“Kamala, as discussed above, admitted in her cross-examination that she not only signed the partition deed but was present throughout its registration, thereby being estopped from challenging the same.”
Further, the court noted that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that Lalita was Indumati’s daughter. Kamala herself denied in her testimony that Lalita was her mother, and no official records or credible witnesses established this relationship. The court observed:
“Kamala, allegedly the daughter of Lalita and the plaintiff No.1, in her cross-examination as P.W.1 dated November 7, 2014, categorically denied that Lalita is her mother. She also admitted that she did not have any document to prove that Lalita was her mother or that Indumati was her grandmother.”
Based on its findings, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court’s judgment and decree. It dismissed the partition suit, concluding that the claim was barred by limitation and that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their entitlement. The court held:
“Thus, from the discussions as made above, it is evident that not only was the suit palpably barred by limitation, the relationship of Lalita as the daughter of Indumati also could not be proved by cogent evidence by the plaintiffs. As such, the alleged omission of her share in the partition deed is not credible.”
The court further held that the 1979 partition deed was valid and had been acted upon by the parties, making any challenge to it untenable.
“The registered Partition Deed of 1979 has not been proved to be void either on the ground of fraud or for omitting Lalita’s share and, thus, is a valid document in the eye of law.”
The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and dismissed the suit, stating:
"F.A. No.89 of 2023 is allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated September 29, 2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Second Court at Barasat, District: North 24 Parganas in Title Suit No.46 of 2013. Accordingly, the said suit is hereby dismissed on contest."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the appellant:
- Mr. Prasad Bhattacharyya
- Mr. Prantick Ghosh
For the respondent:
- Mr. Rahul Karmakar
- Mr. Sourav Guchhait
Case Title: Smt. Shefali Mallick (since deceased) & Ors. v. Durga Chakraborty (Rakshit) (since deceased) & Ors.
Case Number: F.A. No. 89 of 2023 with CAN 1 of 2019 (Old No: CAN 158 of 2019) and CAN 9 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar
[Read/Download order]
