SMT. MENOKA ALIAS MINA GHOSH (CHOWDHURY) & ORS. Vs. DURGA SHANKAR GHOSH & ORS.
LAWS(CAL)-2017-11-195
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on November 16,2017

Smt. Menoka Alias Mina Ghosh (Chowdhury) And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Durga Shankar Ghosh And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

HARISH TANDON,J. - (1.) This revisional application is directed against an Order No. 84 dated 5th August, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Suri, Birbhum in Title Suit No. 29 of 2009 by which an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is rejected.
(2.) Admittedly, the application under Section 10 of the Code is taken out by the plaintiffs/opposite parties at the stage of the evidence of the plaintiffs. By the said application the plaintiffs prayed for a stay of the said Title Suit till the disposal of an application for revocation of probate.
(3.) The facts which emerged from the record are that the plaintiffs/opposite parties filed the said Title Suit No. 29 of 2009 against the defendants/opposite parties for declaration of their title in respect of the properties described in Schedule 'A' and 'B' and for partition and separation of shares. It is alleged in the said plaint that originally the suit properties belong to one Satya Prasanna Ghosh, since deceased. The said deceased married twice during his lifetime and petitioner No. 1 is the second wife and the petitioner No. 2 is a son of the said deceased with the petitioner No. 1 and the proforma defendants are the daughters having born from the said second wife. The defendant nos. 1 to 6 are the heirs and legal representatives of the said deceased with the first wife. Upon the death of the said owner, the properties devolved upon the parties to the suit. It is further alleged that the trouble started after the death of the said Satya Prasanna Ghosh and due to intervention of the common friends, the defendant nos. 1 to 3 executed and registered a Deed of Sale in favour of the petitioner No. 1 by divesting their right, title and interest in respect of the property described in Schedule 'A' to the plaint. Subsequently, the said defendant nos. 1 to 6 sold out the suit properties to the defendant No. 7 suppressing the earlier execution of the Deed of Sale and the said defendant No. 1 is trying to dispossess the petitioners from the possession of the properties described in Schedule 'A'.;


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