Calcutta High Court answered affirming that a co-sharer may convey only the share he actually holds and that a partition suit need only schedule the specific parcel in dispute. This upholds settled civil property precedent and serves as binding authority for future partition cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FAT No. 310 of 2012 of Dilip Saha & Anr Vs Pratima Biswas & Ors |
| CNR | WBCHCA0397472012 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray |
| Court | Calcutta High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction |
| Bench | Hon’ble Justice Soumen Sen and Hon’ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray |
| Precedent Value | Confirms settled law; binding on subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Civil – Property/Succession |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that where the records demonstrate exclusive title to the parcel, scheduling of other jointly-held lands is unnecessary for partition of that specific plot. A co-sharer’s sale conveys only the share lawfully held, so a purchaser cannot claim beyond that share. Appellants failed to prove any joint ownership, oral gift or informal settlement affecting the scheduled plot. The trial court correctly quantified the plaintiff’s 7/12th share and the purchasers’ joint 5/12th share under the devolution of succession. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that omission of unrelated jointly-held parcels does not invalidate partition of a specifically scheduled plot.
- Reinforces that a co-sharer may convey only the fractional share he lawfully holds; bona fide purchasers cannot claim in excess.
- Oral gifts or informal mutual settlements, unsupported by cogent documentary evidence, cannot alter declared shares in a partition suit.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Examined pleadings and found no denial of original owner’s exclusive title over the scheduled plot.
- Applied the settled rule that a co-sharer’s transfer conveys only his own share.
- Traced devolution of shares through successive deaths to arrive at 7/12th for the plaintiff and 5/12th for appellants.
- Rejected appellants’ plea to include other jointly-owned lands absent cogent documentary proof.
- Upheld the trial court’s preliminary decree quantifying shares and directing partition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants)
- The trial court erred by not including Khatian No. 1233 and R.S. Plot No. 2524 in the schedule, distorting share calculation.
- Other co-owners were not impleaded, rendering the suit non-maintainable.
- As bona fide purchasers, they acquired the entire parcel and should not be penalized by a limited decree.
- Oral gift and informal settlement arrangements entitled them to full possession of the scheduled land.
Respondent (Plaintiff)
- Defendant no. 3’s sale deed was void beyond her lawful 5/12th share, suppressing other heirs’ rights.
- Plaintiff lawfully inherited a 7/12th share; subsequent purchasers cannot claim more under settled transfer principles.
- There was no dispute over the specific parcel, so inclusion of other lands was unnecessary.
Factual Background
Nikhil Chandra Sarkar purchased the suit parcel in 1960 and died leaving three heirs (wife, son, daughter), each holding one-third shares. Subsequent deaths and devolution increased the plaintiff’s hold to 7/12th and defendant no. 3’s to 5/12th. In 2008 defendant no. 3 sold the entire parcel to appellants, excluding plaintiff’s interest. The plaintiff filed a partition suit for her 7/12th share; the trial court decreed partition accordingly, prompting this appeal.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed