TARU BALA BISWAS Vs. PRASANTA KUMAR BISWAS & ORS.
LAWS(CAL)-1983-9-34
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 05,1983

Taru Bala Biswas Appellant
VERSUS
Prasanta Kumar Biswas And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Pratibha Bonnerjea, J. - (1.) The present application has been filed by the petitioner under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award dated 16.12.81. The facts of the case is shortly as follows:-
(2.) The petitioner instituted a partition suit in this Court being Suit No. 24A of 1978 against the respondents praying, inter alia, a declaration that the properties mentioned in Annexures A B and C to the plaint were joint family properties and the plaintiff had l/3rd share therein, partition of joint estate and allotment of her share in severalty, a decree against the respondent No. 1 for restoration of personal assets and jewelleries of the plaintiff mentioned in Annexure D to the plaint and in default a decree for value thereof; rendition of accounts against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and a decree for the amount found due. There was also a prayer for adjudging the instruments dated 13.12.50. and 14.9.76 as void and/or voidable and directing delivery up and cancellation of the said documents. The relationship of the parties are as follows:-
(3.) At the time of the death of Chunilal, he left various movable and immovable properties including 1/3rd share in two businesses, K. C. Biswas & Co. and N. C. Dutla & Co. On the death of Chunilal, the said properties devolved on the petitioner and the respondents Nos. 1 and 4 in equal 1/3rd share each. The joint family continued with the respondent No. 1 as Karta. The aforesaid two businesses had gone out of the hands of the original parties in which the petitioner and the respondents Nos. 1 and 4 were partners representing the 1/3rd share of the deceased Chunilal. It is alleged in the present petition that in 1949 it was decided that a new Arms business would be started and licence would be taken in the name of the respondent No. 1 but the same was objected to by the other partners.of the aforesaid businesses. According to the petitioner to avoid that difficulty, it was decided between her and the respondents Nos. 1 and 4 that a purported partition should be effected amongst them showing that the Interest of the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 were allotted to the respondent No. 4 and thereafter a new business would be started by the respondent No. 1. Pursuant to the said arrangement a purported registered deed of partition was executed by and between these parties on 13.12.50. According to the petitioner the document was never acted upon and was void. On the basis of this said document a licence was obtained from the State Government in the name of the respondent No. 1 and a new business in Arms was started in 1951 under the name and style of East India Arms which, in fact, was a joint family business. It is also alleged that to reduce the burden of income tax, this business was described as proprietary concern and/or partnership firm although the business through out has been a joint family business. It is further alleged that out of the joint family income, properties in the Annexures B & C to the petition were acquired. The joint family has four other businesses i.e. Chowringhee Camera Stores, Chowringhee Studio, Photo Cine Suppliers and Biswas Chemical Suppliers. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 has wrongfully taken possession of joint family jewelleries including petitioners personal jewelleries. It is further alleged that the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 entered into an agreement dated 15. 9. 76 for partition of joint family properties without reference to her or without her consent or concurrence completely ignoring her right, title and interest therein. The said agreement is not binding on the petitioner and should be declared void. Under the circumstances, the petitioner bad filed Suit No. 24A of 1978 for partition of these properties. The said suit was contested by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 Prasanta and Jyotsna by filing a joint written statement alleging, inter alia, that the plaintiff was set up by the respondent Ananta and that there was a complete disruption of the joint family by partition on 13th December, 1950 and the subsequent family arrangement dated 15. 9. 76. The partition deed dated 13.12.50 was acted upon by all the parties. Properties and businesses standing in the names of these respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are their personal properties.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.