The High Court of Calcutta, while dismissing an appeal filed against a preliminary decree passed in a partition suit, declaring the shares of the plaintiff and defendants respectively to be 1/3rd each in respect of the suit property, held that a mere dearth of appropriate reasons or improper reasons would not vitiate a judgment and the Appellate Court can always supply further reasons if the Appellate Court concurs with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Judge.
Brief Facts:
The construction of the two upper stories of the building was done in 1984 exclusively by the defendants at their own cost. The plaintiff was married in the year 1985. The plaintiff was ousted by the defendants from the suit property. The partition deed executed in 1981 conferred exclusive title of the predecessors-in-interest of the parties, being their father and grandmother, respectively, concerning the properties shown by a green border in the said partition deed. A partition suit was filed in the year 2015.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the impugned judgment is bad for lack of reasons. He argued that a substantial portion of the judgment is a reproduction of the plaint case and proper issues, particularly regarding ouster and misjoinder of properties, were not framed by the learned Trial Judge at all. He contended that the suit is hit by Article 110 of Schedule - I of the Limitation Act since the plaintiff filed the partition suit much after 12 years after when she was excluded from the property.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that there are tenants in respect of the property, the rent income from whom was being exclusively usurped by the defendants. He argued that it is nowhere pleaded by the defendants, nor any evidence adduced, to the effect that the other co-owners, being the grandmother and subsequently, the mother of the parties, a portion of the property also devolved on whom, had ever relinquished their right in respect of the joint property.
Observations of the Court:
The court noted that the defendants have categorically admitted the share of the plaintiff even in their last-amended written statement. As such, the argument as to ouster is not tenable.
The Court observed that although the reasons attributed by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment leave much to be desired and are at best unhappy, a mere dearth of appropriate reasons or improper reasons would not vitiate a judgment and the Appellate Court can always supply further reasons if the Appellate Court concurs with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Judge. The Court said that the mere fact that the plaintiff was married in the year 1985 and thereafter visited the property rarely or was resisted from entry to the suit property by the defendants/appellants themselves does not ipso facto tantamount to her ouster as one of the co-owners from the property. The possession of the defendants still remained notional joint possession on behalf of all the co-owners, including the plaintiff.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that the impugned judgment and decree dated April 23, 2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge is affirmed.
Case Title: Sri Somnath Dey & Anr. vs. Smt. Sumita Mitra
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Hon’ble Justice Uday Kumar
Case No.: FAT 428 of 2018
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Ratul Das
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
