SHILPI RANI SHIL Vs. REKHA RANI SHIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. None appears for the respondents No. 4, 5, 6 and 7, the official-respondents.

(2.) This is an appeal under Sec. 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 from the judgment and decree respectively dtd. 23/11/2016 and 5/12/2016 delivered in Title Suit No. 294 of 2011 by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura. By the said judgment and decree, the suit that was instituted by the appellants has been dismissed. While dismissing the suit, it has been observed by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura that mother of the plaintiffs had eloped with Ramesh Chandra Shil, since deceased. At that time, she was legally married wife of one Banamali Shil. This fact has been recorded in two judgments, viz. the judgment dtd. 30/8/1982 [Exbt.A] delivered in T.S.(Divorce)12 of 1978 and in the judgment delivered in T.S.(Divorce)01 of 2001 by the Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Sonamura [Exbt.B]. At that time, Bakul Rani Shil [biological mother of the plaintiffs] claimed that Banamali Shil with whom she had marital tie was the father of her three children i.e. the plaintiffs. On 6/2/1978, she was driven out by Banamali Shil when she was carrying. Thereafter, the Judge, Family Court has further observed that there is no evidence on record that any appeal was preferred against those judgments and decrees. Ex parte decree of divorce [part of Exbt.B] was granted in favour of Banamali Shil. Thus, Bakul Rani Shil is a necessary party in the suit, but she has not been added as the party and as such the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Accordingly, the suit has been dismissed. It is to be noted that the suit being T.S. 294 of 2011 was instituted seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) The respondents, the defendants in the suit, by filing a combined written statement has contended that the cancellation order as regards the survival certificate has been issued regularly as in the so called certificate, the defendants were not incorporated as the legal heirs/survivors of Ramesh Chandra Shil, since deceased, even though, they are the legal heirs of Ramesh Chandra Shil. They have denied that the plaintiffs can claim those reliefs as listed in the suit. Those defendants have raised the question of maintainability on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party.