PARTHA SARATHI GHOSH Vs. SULEKHA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order dated 12th January, 1980 passed by Sri A. K. Das Gupta, the learned Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 29 of 1970 in the matter of an application under Section 4 of the Partition Act in Misc. Case No. 21 of 1972.

(2.) The facts in brief leading to this appeal are as follows: Plaintiff No. 1 Sulekha Ghosh and plaintiff No. 2 Srilekha Ghosh, the daughters of late Sailendra Math Ghosh filed the aforesaid partition suit being Title Suit No. 29 of 1970 against, their brother defendent No. 1 Partha Sarathi Ghosh impleading their mother Mira Ghosh as pro-forma defendant No. 2 The suit was decreed on 28th February, 1972 in a preliminary form for partition in respect of ?th share of each of the plaintiffs and on defendant No. 1's claim to buy the share of the plaintiffs under Section 4 of the Partition Act, the Trial Court allowed the defendant No. 1's claim to buy the share of plaintiff No, 1 only at the market price to be assessed on the finding that the plaintiff No. 1 was a stranger to the family dwelling house in question because of her marriage and living in the house of her husband when she filed the suit for partition after acquiring interest in her share and rejected the defendant No. 1's claim under Section 4 of the Partition Act so far as it related to the share of plaintiff No. 2 who was unmarried and was a member in the family dwelling house when the partition suit was filed.

(3.) The plaintiff No. 2 Srilekha Ghosh filed one petition under Section 4 of the Partition Act on 30th March, 1972 to buy the share of the plaintiff No. 1, Sulekha Ghosh. Defendant No. 1 filed the objection to such petition on 22nd September, 1972 challenging the claim of the plaintiff No.2. On 12th March, 1972, defendant No.1 filed further objection to the plaintiff No.2's application under Section 4 of the Partition Act contending inter alia that the plaintiff No. 2 had been given in marriage on 12th June, 1976 and that since then she had been residing in her marital home and had ceased to be the member of the family in the family dwelling house-in-question and that the plaintiff No. 2 was, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Partition Act in view of the changed events and circumstances.