SEKHAR KUMAR ROY Vs. LILA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment and decree dtd. 22/12/2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sealdah in Title Suit no. 109 of 2011, whereby the suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction instituted by the plaintiff/appellant herein was dismissed, have been called in question in the present appeal.

(2.) One Sekhar Kumar Roy, the plaintiff/appellant (in short, Sekhar) presented the plaint contending inter alia that his father, Sailendra Kumar Roy, since deceased (in short, Sailendra) purchased the suit property by one registered deed of sale in 1969 in 'benam' of his wife, Smt. Lila Roy, defendant no. 1, since deceased (in short, Lila). Lila, who happened to be a house-wife, was a mere name lender and she did not contribute any single farthing towards consideration money since she had no independent income at the relevant time of purchase of the suit property. Sailendra got the building plan sanctioned in the name of Lila and by spending money from his own fund constructed two-storied building thereon. He thereafter died intestate on 29/5/1999 leaving behind his widow, Lila, the plaintiff as his son and one daughter, the defendant no. 2, namely Sumita Saha (in short, Sumita), who according to Sec. 8 of Hindu Succession Act have inherited 1/3rd share each of the suit property and Sekhar stayed in the suit property till 11/5/2011 and since then, he started leaving apart. Sekhar thereafter approached the defendants to effect partition of the suit property by metes and bounds but the defendants refuted the claim of partition of Sekhar and hence, the suit.

(3.) Records reveal that both the defendants defended the suit by filing separate written statements. Crux of the defence taken by Lila and defendant no. 2 in their written statement is as follows: