[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Anjali Verma Nee Puri And Anr vs Devraj Puri And Ors on 18 February, 2026
Author: Arindam Mukherjee
Bench: Arindam Mukherjee
OD-5
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA No. GA/2/2025
In
CS No. 8 of 2025
ANJALI VERMA NEE PURI AND ANR.
VERSUS
DEVRAJ PURI AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
Date: 18th February, 2026.
Appearance:
Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Sukrit Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Monica Jaiswal, Adv.
Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Joydeep Roy, Adv.
Ms. Akshita Singh, Adv.
For the plaintiffs/petitioners.
Mr., Rohit Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Altamash Alim, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Roy, Adv.
For the defendants/respondents.
The Court:- The plaintiffs in a partition suit have taken out this
application, inter alia, for injunction.
After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, it
appears that the issue involved in this application is a flat measuring about
1600 sq. ft. being flat No. 5B at the 5th floor, at premises No. 9/3 Hungerford
Street, Kolkata-700017 (hereinafter referred to as "the said flat").
It is the case of the plaintiffs/petitioners that the said flat was owned by
late father of the plaintiffs/petitioners and defendant/respondent no.1 and the
husband of the defendant/respondent no.2. The said flat is under Latika Co-
operative Housing Society Limited, the defendant/respondent no.3. It is also
the case of the plaintiffs/petitioners that the father had nominated the mother
(defendant/respondent no.2) as a nominee in the records of the Co-operative
Society. After the death of the father the mother got the said flat transferred in
her name and treated the same as her individual property and not one derived
by inheritance from her late husband wherein her sons and daughters also
have a right. It is the further case of the plaintiffs/petitioners that the mother
has subsequently gifted the flat to the defendant/respondent no.1 who is now
operating a business of letting out the said flat or portions thereof to paying
guests. The plaintiffs/petitioners also say that the defendant no.1 is deriving
huge income by letting out the same of which the plaintiffs/petitioners are
deprived. The plaintiffs/petitioners say that the legal position in respect of a
flat situated in a co-operative society after the death of the owner in connection
with a controversy between the right of a nominee and those of legal
heirs/heiresses of the deceased owner had fallen for consideration before the
Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2016) 6 SCC 440 (Indrani Wahi
-Versus- Registrar of Co-operative Societies And Others). Relying upon
paragraph 22 of the said judgment it is submitted by the plaintiffs/petitioners
that they as legal heir/heiress of late Kewal Krishan Puri (father) have 1/4 th
share each in the estate of their deceased father which includes the said flat.
The plaintiffs/petitioners, therefore, are entitled to at least ½ share of the
income generated from the said flat till the partition is effected.
It is also the case of the plaintiffs/petitioners that the
defendant/respondent no.1 is manipulating the figures to fudge the accounts
to contend that the income from the said flat is only about Rs.20,000/- while
the actual income depending on the area wherein the flat is located is much in
excess of the sum of Rs.20,000/-. The plaintiffs/petitioners, therefore, seek
necessary orders of injunction, if necessary, appointment of a Special Officer as
also for accounts.
The defendant/respondent no.1 on the other hand submits that the
plaintiffs/petitioners are residents of USA and Canada. None of them have ever
taken care of the old and aged mother after the death of the father, however,
when it comes to claim a share in the property they feign ignorance about the
mother's requirement and expenses. The entire responsibility of the mother has
been looked after by the defendant no.1. The mother out of love and affection
has gifted the said flat to the defendant no.1 the income generated from the
said flat is mostly spent behind the mother's upkeepment.
It is also the case of the defendant/respondent no. 1 that unless it is
held that the defendant/respondent no.2 had no right, title and interest in the
said flat and the gift deed executed by the defendant/respondent no.2 in favour
of the defendant/respondent no.1 is adjudged void, the defendant/respondent
no.1 has the exclusive right to use, enjoy and occupy the said flat as its rightful
owner. The defendant/respondent no.1, therefore, cannot be compelled to part
with any part or portion of the income generated from the said flat to the
plaintiffs either jointly and/or severally treating the flat to be a joint property.
The defendant/respondent no.1 has also referred to some documents to show
that the income stated by the said defendants/respondents is true and correct
and there has been no fudging of accounts or manipulation of income as
alleged by the plaintiffs/petitioners.
The plaintiffs/petitioners on the other hand produce some documents to
show that paying guest in and around the said area has to pay much higher
sum than that shown by the defendant/respondent no.1 in usual course of
business.
It is also submitted by the defendant/respondent no.1 that a similar
application was made by the plaintiffs/petitioners being IA No. GA/1/2025
which fell for consideration before a co-ordinate Bench but was disallowed by
an order dated 27th February, 2025. This submission, however, disputed by the
plaintiffs/petitioners.
It is submitted by the plaintiffs/petitioners that the Court had no
occasion to consider the prayer for providing accounts as the said application
stood disposed of at the invitation of the defendant/respondent no.1 on
agreeing to an order restraining the said defendant/respondent no.1 from
further dealing with, disposing of, alienating, encumbering the said flat. The
prayer for accounts, therefore, as submitted by the plaintiffs/petitioners cannot
be construed to have been hit by the principles of constructing res judicata.
At the interlocutory stage, the Court cannot venture into disputed
question of facts but only forms a prima facie view. The law as held in (2016) 6
SCC 440 (supra) supports the claim of the plaintiffs but there has to be
conclusive adjudication of right by adducing evidence and relying upon such
ratio. At the interlocutory stage, the Court can at the highest form an opinion
that the plaintiffs/petitioners have a share in the said flat when the flat was
recorded in the name of the mother (defendant/respondent no.2). As the
nominee when the plaintiffs/petitioners mother had applied for transfer the
plaintiffs/petitioners may have issued a "no objection" for such transfer of
names. This issue, therefore, is a triable one. Once this issue is held to be
triable, the gift deed cannot even be prima facie held to be a void document on
the ground that the mother did not have exclusive title in respect of the flat.
Thus the said flat cannot be even prima facie held to be in waste for which a
Receiver/Special Officer is required to appoint as the interest of the
plaintiffs/petitioners are otherwise protected by the order of injunction. It is
also no one's case that the business is not a running business and as such the
Court should be loathe in interfering such running business by appointing a
Receiver or Special Officer in respect of the flat wherefrom the business is
operated. However, at the same time if ultimately the plaintiffs/petitioners
succeed in establishing that the plaintiffs/petitioners had severally 1/4 th share
in the said flat and jointly 50% share therein then the income commensurate
their respective shares for all these years cannot be accounted for or realized.
This boils down to the only outstanding issue as to forming of accounts in
connection with the paying guest business carried by the
defendant/respondent no.1 from the said flat.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the defendant/respondent no.1
is directed to maintain proper accounts by giving the details of the inmates or
the occupiers of the said flat from time to time, the payment received from each
one of them against valid invoice and receipt, the expenses made for running of
the paying guest accommodation, the maintenance charges for the said flat,
electricity charges etc. and the property tax. A copy of the accounts on
quarterly basis shall be provided to the advocate-on-record of the
plaintiffs/petitioners till further orders. The plaintiffs/petitioners will be at
liberty to demonstrate at the trial by adducing evidence that the income shown
by the defendant no.1 by using the said flat for being occupied by paying
guests were fudged figures and shall be entitled to payment and/or adjustment
of such sum that may be found in excess of the amounts shown by the
defendant no.1.
Nothing further remains to be adjudication in this application.
The application being IA No. GA/2/2025 in CS No. 8 of 2025 is,
accordingly, disposed of.
(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)
snn.
