RUPAM CHOWDHURY Vs. GAUTAM DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisional application has been filed challenging an order dated November 9, 2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Additional Court at Sealdah, District 24th Parganas (South) in the Title Suit No. 10 of 2010, which was further renumbered as Title Suit No. 11734 of 2014.

(2.) By the order impugned, the learned court below rejected the application dated March 23, 2021.By the said application, the petitioner and one Uma Chowdhury sought to be added as parties, claiming to be the heirs of the deceased defendant No 2. The learned court below rejected such prayer. The learned court held that as the defendant No. 2 died intestate on January 23, 2020 and her husband predeceased her. In terms of Sec. 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, the right of inheritance of a Hindu married woman, who died intestate, without leaving behind either a husband or children, would devolve upon the heirs of the husband. The petitioner was the nephew of the deceased and son of late Ratan Chowdhury (brother of the deceased). Smt. Uma Chowdhury, wife of late Ratan Chowdhury, was the sister-in-law of the deceased.

(3.) Mr. Das, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that as per the plaint case, the addition was permissible as the plaintiffs denied the marriage between Haridas Dutta and the deceased defendant. The plaint case was that defendant No. 1, Haridas Dutta had developed an illicit relationship with the defendant No. 2, Krishna Dutta Chowdhury and the property which Krishna Dutta Chowdhury had tried to grab, by impersonating herself as the legally married wife of the defendant No. 1 Haridas Dutta, actually belonged to the Hindu Undivided Family. The defendant No. 1 was the Karta. A declaration was prayed for, that Krishna Dutta Chowdhury (since deceased) did not have any right to claim any ownership with regard to the suit property which was part of a Hindu Undivided Family, comprising of the wife of defendant No1/ plaintiff No. 1 (since deceased), plaintiff No. 2 and proforma defendant No. 3.