GOLAPMONI ROY Vs. NANIGOPAL ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule arise out. of an order dated 3. 5. 75 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, , 5th Court, Alipore (24-Parganas) whereby he held that the payment of Court fees of Rs. 15/- was sufficient and that the plaintiff need not pay the ad valorem Court fee.

(2.) THE opposite party no. 1 as plaintiff institute a title suit being T. S. No. 95 of 1970 in the 5th Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore against the petitioners and opposite parties nos. 2 to 10 for a preliminary decree for partition in respect of the suit properties declaring his l/14th share therein upon a declaration that the deed of trust dated 10. 2. 50 executed by Late Bhusan Chandra Ray Sardar was invalid, void and Inoperative and did not affect the plaintiff's title and for partition by metes and bounds. It was pleaded that Late Bhusan Chandra Ray Sardar, the predecessor-in-interest of the parties died on 23. 5. 68 and the plaintiff being the eldest son by the predeceased wife was entitled to 1/14th share in the properties left by him and thereafter the plaintiff demanded partition from the other heir who however disclosed that the said Bhusan Chandra had executed a deed of trust on 10th February 1950 whereby the plaintiff had been deprived of his share regarding items included in schedules (A) to (F) of the plaint and according to him, the trust deed was void, illegal, inoperative and had never been acted upon and the said trust deed came to an end on 23. 4. 68 on the attainment of majority of his youngest son. So it did not create any- interest in favour of any of his beneficiaries and the properties covered by the trust deed had all along been in the possession of the said Bhusan chandra as an absolute owner, and the said trust deed had been brought into existence by exercise of undue influence, coercion and duress and therefore the plaintiff's right title and interest in the suit properties was not effected in any way. It was further pleaded that on the death of his father the plaintiff and the defendants jointly inherited ail the properties left by him and had been in joint possession thereof.

(3.) THE further case of the plaintiff was that his maternal grand father died leaving a widow and on her death the plaintiff inherited all the properties of his maternal grand father, but plaintiff then being a minor those properties (about 145 bights) were being managed by his father who acquired some other properties either in his name or in the names of some of the other defendants and that a huge amount of money by way of income of the said property accumulated in the hands of Bhusan Chandra which again fell in the hands of defendants nos. 1 and 2 and that defendant no. 2 had always been realizing all incomes and usufructs of the joint properties giving the plaintiff only a poultry sum and as such he was liable to render account to the plaintiff.