Tripura High Court
Smt. Tapashi Bhattacharjee Datta And ... vs . on 27 August, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
FA NO.06 OF 2024
Smt. Tapashi Bhattacharjee Datta and anr.
Vs.
Smt. Kanan Datta and ors.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Present:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. I. Chakraborty, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : None.
27.08.2024
Order
This present appeal has been filed under Section 47
of the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 96 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the impugned
Judgment and Order dated 10.07.2024 in connection with Case
No.Civil Misc.(G/C)01/2014 passed by the learned District Judge,
Gomati Judicial District Tripura.
2. The brief fact of this case is that the deceased-Api
Datta made a house spending Rs.20,00,000/- for the residential
purpose of his wife, minor daughter, and mother. To do so, he
took a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- and by this time, he expired and
could not repay the debt. Deceased-Api Datta also had a land
measuring 0.03 acres which is the homestead land. In the said
house, the wife, minor daughter, and the mother of deceased-
Api Datta are residing. Now the persons who gave loan of
Rs.7,00,000/- to Api Datta are pressurizing his wife and mother
for repayment of the debt. But to repay the same, they have to
sell out the share of the minor out of the total land of 0.03 acres
left by the deceased husband of appellant-petitioner No.1. That
is why the appellant-petitioner No.1 along with her minor
daughter have filed a petition before the learned Court below for
granting Guardianship Certificate for selling out the land
belonging to the share of the minor for the purpose of returning
back the debt left by her husband as well as to maintain the
minor. The learned Court below rejected the prayer stating that
since the minor's interest is involved, the said land could not be
sold. Hence this appeal for permission of guardianship Certificate
to sell the scheduled property inherited by the deceased
husband and the father of the appellant-petitioners.
3. Mr. I. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants submits that both the land have the interest of
the minor but they have to sell the vacant land so that the debt
could be paid back.
4. It is seen from the impugned Judgment and Order
dated 10.07.2024 that the Court below was not convinced by the
evidence provided by the appellant-petitioners to substantiate
their claims and as such the same was rejected.
5. However, to provide one more opportunity to the
appellant-petitioners to adduce proper evidence and substantiate
their claims, the matter is remanded back to the Court below for
reconsideration and the appellant-petitioners are also given the
liberty to file any additional pleadings or additional evidence
documentary or oral evidence before the Court below. The Court
below shall decide the matter afresh by appreciating the
evidence. However, it is made clear this Court is not expressing
any opinion on the merit of the case holding that the appellants
are entitled to the relief sought for. The decision be taken by the
Court below keeping in view the interest of the minor child and
the order be passed in accordance with the law.
6. With the above observation, the appeal is
accordingly disposed of. The impugned lower Court Judgment
and Order dated 10.07.2024 is set aside and the matter is
remanded back with the above observation.
B. PALIT, J T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally
RAJKUMAR
signed by
SUHANJIT SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2024.08.27
SINGHA 14:27:00 +05'30'
