Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 372 (TRI)

Laxmi Paul v. Ratna Rani Debnath (Paul)

2014-11-12

DEEPAK GUPTA, S.C.DAS

body2014
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta; CJ. 1. On 18-06-2014 when the matter was listed, Mr. B. Majumder, learned counsel for the appellants, prayed that appellant No. 1 had expired and he may be granted one month time to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased appellant. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 23-07-2014 on which date the application for substitution was allowed and the legal representatives were ordered to be brought on record vide order dated 23-07-2014. The matter was then listed for hearing on 20-08-2014 when none appeared on behalf of the appellants and the matter was adjourned to today. Today also none appears on behalf of the appellants. Therefore, this appeal is being disposed of on merits itself. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff Smt. Ratna Rani Debnath (Paul), respondent No. 1 herein, is the real sister of Late Sri Anil Paul, Sri Mangal Paul and Sri Sunil Chandra Paul. The other defendant-respondents are the nephews being the sons of another brother Narayan Ch. Paul. Thus, Nityananda Paul had four sons and one daughter. The daughter filed a suit claiming that the brothers and heirs of Narayan Ch. Paul had entered into a partition agreement by excluding her. Therefore, she filed a suit for partition claiming 1/5th share in the property. No Will has been produced by the defendants to show that the property was willed in their favour. Their only stand is that since there had been a previous partition between the brothers and part of the suit property was sold off without any objection from the sister, she is not entitled to partition of the property. 3. The learned trial Court rejected this ground and held that since the plaintiff being daughter of Nityananda Paul was entitled to 1/5th share in the property and since she was neither associated in the previous proceedings nor was party to the partition or the sale deed which had been entered into by the brothers, she was not bound by the same and, therefore, was entitled to 1/5th share in the property. 4. We find no error in this judgment. Merely because the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is the sister, she cannot be disentitled from her share in a property. 5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed on merit. 6. Send down the lower court records forthwith.