PASUPATI DUTTA Vs. KALPANA DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE partition suit relates to the division of the estate left behind by Moni Mohon Dutta since deceased. Late Moni Mohon Dutta was survived by his widow, the original Plaintiff No. 1, four sons being the Plaintiff No. 2, Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and one daughter, the Defendant No. 4, as his heirs and legal representatives.

(2.) THE suit was filed by the widow of late Moni Mohon Dutta as the Plaintiff No. 1, and one of his sons the Plaintiff No. 2, against the other heirs and legal representatives. The widow died on September 18, 2003. The Defendant No. 1 died on August 24, 2005. The Defendant No. 1 was survived by the Defendant Nos. 1A and 1B. Consequent upon the death of the parties, the cause title to the plaint was amended. The parties had disclosed various documents. The plaintiff had produced one witness at trial. The Defendant No. 1A and 1B had produced one witness and the Defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7 produced one witness. At the time of hearing of the arguments of the parties, none appeared on behalf of the plaintiff to make any submission.

(3.) HE contends that, the deed of settlement dated August 20, 1991 set up by the Defendant Nos. 7, 8 and 9 by which the Defendant Nos. 7, 8 and 9 were purported to be gifted the 1/6th share of the widow of Moni Mohon Dutta, the original Plaintiff No. 1, in respect of two immovable properties, namely, premises No. 21, Girish Avenue, Shyampukur, Kolkata -700003 and the premises No. 211/1/2, Shibpur Road, Howrah is suspect. He submits that, the plaint was presented on September 8, 1992. He highlights the suspicious circumstances relating to the deed of settlement in reference to the conduct of the parties and the pleadings in the suit. The original Plaintiff No. 1 as the first plaintiff in the suit did not refer to the deed of settlement dated August 20, 1991 in the plaint. The plaint case is not on the basis of the deed of settlement. Another suspicious circumstance, according to the Defendant Nos. 1A and 1B, is that, the Defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7 till 2001 was claiming not to know of the deed of settlement. These suspicious circumstances, according to him, are material and are required to be given due weightage and consideration by the Court.