Calcutta High Court
Seal & Ors vs Smt. Chabi Rani Chunder Also Known As on 4 September, 2025
Author: Sugato Majumdar
Bench: Sugato Majumdar
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Sugato Majumdar
CS/59/2024
[OLD NO CS/36/2018]
SMT. GOURI RANI SEAL ALSO KNOWN AS GOURI
SEAL & ORS.
VS
SMT. CHABI RANI CHUNDER ALSO KNOWN AS
CHABI CHUNDER
For the Plaintiff : Mr. Jaydip Kar, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Suparna Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Avijit Dey, Adv.
Mr. Shayak Mitra, Adv.
Hearing concluded on : 01/09/2025
Judgment on : 04/09/2025
Sugato Majumdar, J.:
The instant suit was filed by the Plaintiffs against the sole Defendant praying
for declaratory decree, decree of eviction of the sole Defendant, mandatory
injunction and other ancillary reliefs.
The plaint case may be summarized as follow:
a) One Manik Lall Seal, the predecessor of the present parties,
executed his last will and testament on 16th June, 1899. The said
Manik Lall Seal expired on the 1st day of April 1905, leaving behind
Page |2
him his legal heirs and successors. Sarbosona Dasi, the widow of
the said Manik Lall Seal, was appointed as Executrix under the will
along with two sons Nabin Chand Boral and Lal Chand Boral.
Probate of the will was granted by this Court on 2nd June, 1905.
b) Pursuant to the authority given under the will, the widow Sarbosona
Dasi adopted one Sambhu Lall Seal as a son unto her husband, the
deceased Manik Lall Seal. The said Sambhu Lall Seal died in the
year 1921 leaving behind him his mother Sarbosona Seal and two
sons Nimai Lall Seal and Dulal Lall Seal.
c) During her lifetime, the said Sarbosona Dasi executed a Deed of
Surrender on 21st April, 1943 in favour of her two sons Nemai Lall
Seal and Dulal Lall Seal of all her life interests in the property for
being secular residuary estate under the said will and testament of
the deceased Manik Lall Seal. Thus the said Nemai Lall Seal and
the said Dulal Lall Seal became absolute owners of the estate of the
deceased Manik Lall Seal.
d) Disputes and differences cropped up between the said Nemai Lal
Seal and Dulal Lal Seal. An arbitrator was appointed and the estate
was partitioned between them, in terms of the Award dated 2 nd
August, 1960. This Court passed judgment in terms of the Award in
Award Case No. 30 of 1961 on 9th May, 1961. By virtue of the
Award, the said Nemail Lall Seal became owner of the premises no.
1, Prem Chand Boral Street, Kolkata, along with others.
e) On 11/08/1969, the said Nemai Lall Seal executed a Deed of
Settlement creating trust appointing himself and his elder son Arun
Page |3
Lall Seal as trustees in respect of half of the shares of the said
property being premises no. 1, Prem Chand Boral Street, Kolkata-
700012 (hereinafter mentioned as "the said property"). Under this
Deed of Settlement, beneficiaries were Arun Lall Seal, since
deceased, and his wife Smt. Gouri Rani Seal, the present Plaintiff
no. 1. The expense of the settlement was 30 years from the date of
the deed on expiry of which the trust property would vest absolutely
in the beneficiaries in equal shares as their personal properties. The
deed further provided that if the said Nemai Lall Seal deed or
retired, in that event his wife was to be appointed as the new trustee
in his place.
f) The said Nemai Lall Seal executed another Deed of Settlement on
15/08/1969 wherein a trust was created in respect of the other part
of the said property. The said Nemai Lall Seal as well as his elder
son Arun Lall Seal was appointed as trustees. Beneficiaries under
the second deed were the younger son of the said Nemai Lall Seal,
being Barun Lall Seal and the wife of the former, being Lilabati Seal.
This settlement was also created for thirty years from the date of the
deed. It was provided that on expiry of the said period of 30 years,
the settlement would cease to exist and the trust property would
vest in the beneficiaries in equal shares. In this deed it was further
provided that after death of the said Lilabati Seal, Barun Lall Seal
would inherit the share of Lilabati Seal for life. After death of Barun
Lall Seal, his shares would devolve on his legally married wife and
children born out of the said wedlock provided that the marriage
would take place according to family tradition and strictly according
Page |4
to Hindu rites and with consent of the said Nemai Lall Seal or his
wife. In default of marriage and children share of Barun Lall Seal
would devolve on the elder son of Nemai Lall Seal, being Arun Lall
Seal and the wife of the Arun Lall Seal being the present Plaintiff
no.1, absolutely and in equal shares.
g) The said Nemai Lall Seal expired on 13/03/1980 when his widow
became the new trustee. The said Arun Lall Seal died on
14/12/1990 after which the Plaintiff no. 1 was appointed as new
trustee under two separate Deeds of Appointment.
h) By efflux of time the Deed of Settlement dated 11/08/1969 came to
an end on 10/08/1999. Similarly, by efflux of time the Deed of
Settlement dated 15/08/1969 came to the end on 14/08/1999. The
said Lilabati Seal did not have any interest under the Deed of
Settlement dated 11/08/1969. After lapse of the other Deed of
Settlement dated 15/08/1969, by efflux of time, the properties
covered therein, vested in Lalabati Seal and Barun Lall Seal for life
interest only.
i) The said Barun Lall Seal died bachelor on 18/08/2017. On death of
Arun Lall Seal and Barun Lall Seal, the Plaintiffs became absolute
owners of the said property under the two Deeds of Settlement.
j) The Defendant, being the sole daughter of the said Nemai Lall Seal
in purported exercise of right of inheritance, has been interfering
with the administration of the said property. Taking advantage of
the fact that the Defendant had resided with her mother Lilabati
Seal during the later's lifetime, she is still residing in the said
Page |5
property. The Defendant being the daughter of Lilabati Seal is also
collecting rent from the tenants. According to the Plaintiffs, the
Defendant neither has right to occupy the said property nor has any
right to collect rent from the tenants.
k) The Plaintiffs, therefore, instituted the instant suit praying for
declaration that the Defendant has no right, title and interests in the
said property; decree of eviction against the Defendant from the
said property directing her to hand over peaceful and vacant
possession; mandatory injunction restraining the Defendant from
exercising any right, title or interest in respect of the said property
and not to collect rent from the tenants; decree of mandatory
injunction directing the Defendant to account for money so
collected from the tenants along with ancillary prayers.
The Defendant appeared in the suit and contested the same by filing written
statement. But subsequently on repeated occasions did not disclose documents.
This Court in terms of the Order dated 28/01/2025, asked the Defendant to show
cause why her defense should not be struck out. The Defendant remained absent
and failed to show cause on the date so fixed. Accordingly, in terms of the Order
dated 05/02/2025, this Court struck off the defense of the Defendant. The
Defendant did not appear thereafter.
The Plaintiff no. 1 deposed as witness. The Plaintiff no. 1 adduced
documentary evidences including the original Deed of Settlement dated 11/08/1969
as well as 15/08/1969. Documents were marked as exhibits.
The Learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff Mr. Kar argued, referring to the
Ext. A and Ext. B, being the two aforesaid Deed of Settlements, that those
Page |6
instruments did not create any right, title and interests in the said property in favour
of the Defendant. The Defendant is a rank trespasser; she has no authority to
interfere with the administration of the estate and collect rents from the tenant.
Therefore, according to Mr. Kar, the suit should succeed and decree of recovery of
peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises should be allowed against the
Defendant. However, Mr. Kar did not press for the prayer of mandatory injunction
asking for the Defendant to account for the money, so collected from the tenants in
the form of rent.
Genesis of the right, title and interests of the Plaintiffs are the two aforesaid
Deed of Settlements dated 11/08/1969 and 15/08/1969. The Settlor clearly
mentioned in the said deeds being Ext. A & Ext. B that the Defendants, being her
daughter would have no right, title and interests in the said property. As it is in
evidence, the Defendant had been residing with her mother in the said property and
is still continuing in possession. At best she can be a gratuitous licencee. The said
gratuitous licence stood terminated and notice of such termination must be known
to the Defendant. Eventhough, there is no such notice of termination, institution of
the suit is sufficient notice and the Defendant, once appeared and contested the suit
by filing written statement, is deemed to be aware of such termination.
Ext. A & Ext. B read with the oral testimony of the P.W.1, being the Plaintiff
no.1 clearly establish the title of the Plaintiffs in the said property. It is also the
finding of this Court, as discussed above, that the Defendant has no right, title and
interests in the suit property and has no right to possession and occupation of the
said property.
In nutshell the instant suit is allowed.
Page |7
It is ordered that the Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory decree that the
Defendant has no right, title and interests in the said property located at premises
no. 1, Prem Chand Boral Street, Kolkata-700012. The Plaintiffs are also entitled to a
decree for recovery of peaceful and vacant possession of the said property from the
Defendant.
The Defendant shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit
property to the Plaintiff within sixty days from the date of drawing up the decree, in
case of failure of which the Plaintiffs shall be at liberty to initiate the execution
proceeding for enforcing the decree.
Let the decree be drawn up.
The instant suit is disposed of.
(Sugato Majumdar, J.)
