Sri Raja Pal vs Smt. Bandita Chakraborty (Paul)
2024 Latest Caselaw 1315 Tri

Tripura High Court

Sri Raja Pal vs Smt. Bandita Chakraborty (Paul) on 1 August, 2024

                                  Page 1 of 2




                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA
                               CRP No.66/2024
Sri Raja Pal, S/O. Late Bankim Chandra Pal, aged about 44 years, resident of
Rajbari, P.O. P.S. & Sub-Division-Dharmanagar, District-North Tripura.
                                                         ......... Petitioner(s).
                                 VERSUS
1. Smt. Bandita Chakraborty (Paul), W/O. Sri Manoj Chakraborty, D/O. Late
Bankim Chandra Paul, resident of Rajbari, P.O. P.S. & Sub-Division-
Dharmanagar, District-North Tripura; presently residing at: Madhyamgram,
North 24 Paragana, Kolkata, West Bengal.
2. Sri Bijoy Krishna Paul, S/O. Sri Manoj Chakraborty, resident of Rajbari,
P.O. P.S. & Sub-Division-Dharmanagar, District-North Tripura; presently
residing at: Madhyamgram, North 24 Paragana, Kolkata, West Bengal.
3. Smt. Anjali Paul, W/O. Late Bankim Chandra Paul, resident of Rajbari, P.O.
P.S. & Sub-Division-Dharmanagar, District-North Tripura; presently residing
at: Madhyamgram, North 24 Paragana, Kolkata, West Bengal.
4. Smt. Tanima Paul (Das), W/O. Sri Santosh Kumar Das, D/O. Late Bankim
Chandra Paul, resident of Dupirbond, P.O. P.S. & Sub-Division-Dharmanagar,
District-North Tripura.
                                                      .........Respondent(s).

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sankar Lodh, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : None.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH

Order

01/08/2024

On the apprehension that the plaintiff and defendant No.4 in

T.S.(P) No.36 of 2019 would sell off 1/5th share allotted as per judgment and

preliminary decree dated 04.12.2023, the defendant No.1/petitioner herein

preferred Civil Misc. No.36 of 2024 in the same T.S.(P) No.36 of 2019 with a

prayer to pass an order under Section 3 of the Partition Act read with Section

151 of the CPC directing the plaintiff to discuss with the petitioner (defendant

No.1) prior to selling her share so that he may purchase the same. The learned

trial Court upon hearing the plaintiff and upon consideration of the averments

in the said application, however, was of the opinion that no order could be

passed under Sections 2 and 3 of the Partition Act since only preliminary

decree has been passed declaring the shares of the parties over the suit land and

moreover, no application has been received yet for sale of the share of any of

the co-sharers. In that way, the application of the defendant No.1/petitioner

invoking the provisions of the Partition Act, 1893 was premature. Therefore,

learned counsel for the petitioner after some arguments does not press the

instant petition with a liberty to approach the learned trial Court, if necessary,

at the appropriate time.

Accordingly, the instant revision petition is disposed of as not

pressed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

                                           (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ




Pulak



DIPESH DEB                 Digitally signed by DIPESH DEB
                           Date: 2024.08.02 19:05:42 +05'30'