MITA PANDA AND OTHERS Vs. MINATI CHAKRABARTY AND ANOTHER
LAWS(CAL)-2019-1-56
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 09,2019

MITA PANDA AND OTHERS Appellant
VERSUS
MINATI CHAKRABARTY AND ANOTHER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.) The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against an order whereby the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chandernagore declared a gift deed dated June 26, 2015, executed by the opposite party no. 1 Minati in favour of the petitioners, void in terms of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2007 Act"), by accepting a deed of revocation filed by the opposite party no. 1 and granting 8 weeks to the petitioners to hand over the gifted property to the opposite party no. 1 after vacating their belongings, failing which they would have to be evicted.
(2.) The petitioner no. 1, namely Mita, is the younger (married) daughter of the opposite party no. 1, namely Minati, and the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 the husband and son, respectively, of the petitioner no. 1. During pendency of the revisional application, the opposite party no. 2 Indranil (son of the elder daughter of the opposite party no. 1) was added as a party on the strength of a gift deed executed by the opposite party no. 1 in favour of the opposite party no. 2 subsequent to the impugned order being passed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that previously the opposite party no. 1 had instituted against the present petitioner nos. 1 and 2 a suit, bearing Title Suit No. 410 of 2015, in the First Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Chandernagore for declaration that the plaintiff (present opposite party no. 1) was the absolute owner of the suit property and her right, title and interest had not been affected in any way by the forged, fraudulent so-called deed of gift dated June 26, 2015 being No. 2015 of DSR II, Chinsurah Hooghly and the same was not binding upon the plaintiff, for further declaration that the defendant no. 1 therein (present petitioner no. 1) had not acquired any right, title interest in the suit property by dint of forged, fraudulent, void aforesaid alleged deed of gift and for consequential reliefs.;


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