AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.: This is an application filed by the plaintiff No-1 and 2/Petitioners praying for the following reliefs;
A) A preliminary decree for partition of the immoveable described in the schedules at Annexure ‘X’ to the application and the shares held in Mahalaxmi Vanijya Private Limited Pilling Builders Pvt. Ltd. IISCO Steel Ltd. described in Annexure ‘X’ to the application in accordance with the respective shares of the petitioners and the respondents as mentioned in paragraph no. 39 and 40 of the application.
B) A time be provided in the preliminary decree to effect partition amicably in terms of the preliminary decree.
C) Alternatively in case the petitioners and the respondents do not agree or fail to amicably partition the immoveable properties described in the schedules at Annexure ‘X’ to the application and the shares held in Mahalaxmi Vanijya Private Limited, Pilling Builders Pvt. IISCO steel Ltd. described in Annexure ‘X’ to the application in accordance with the respective shares of the petitioners and the respondents hereto in terms of the preliminary decree an Advocate Commissioner be appointed to cause partition of the same and/or to sell the immoveable property/properties and to make over the surplus sale proceeds thereof after payment of statutory liabilities in accordance with the respective shares of the parties.
D) A final decree be passed in terms of the report of the Advocate Commissioner;
E) Costs,
F) Such further and/or other relief or reliefs as this Court may deem fit and proper.
The contention of the plaintiff no-1 petitioner in the application may be summed up thus.
One Praveen Agarwal was a Bright young entrepreneur who grew the business of the Agarwal family manifold. The said Proveen Agarwal died intestate on 14th July 2016 and is survived by his wife the petitioner no-1 daughter being the petitioner no-2 and his mother being the respondent no. 3.
The respondent no-1 and 3 are the father and the mother respectively of Late Praveen Agarwal. The respondent no. 2 is the brother and the respondent no. 4 is the sister in law, respectively of Late Praveen Agarwal. The respondent NO-5 is the married sister of Late Praveen Agarwal. The respondent no. 6 is the HUF of the respondent no-1 of which Late Praveen Agarwal was a coparcener.
The concerned suit has been filed by the widow and daughter of the said Praveen Agarwal seeking partition of the estate of Late Praveen Agarwal and for their entitlement in share in the estate of the respondent No. 1 together with the accruals and income therefrom. The petitioner no-1 is the daughter in law of the respondent nos. 1 and 3 and the sister-in-law of the respondent nos. 2, 4, and 5. The petitioner no-2 is the granddaughter of the respondent nos. 1 and 3 and the niece of the respondent nos. 2, 4, and 5.
The said Praveen Agarwal (since deceased) was a bright young entrepreneur who founded and carried on various businesses during his lifetime. The said Praveen Agarwal (since deceased) had out of his own funds jointly with the petitioner no-1 purchased an apartment at Alipore Exatica being Flat No. 7B situated on the 7th Floor of 37B, Alipore Road Kolkata-700027 outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
With funds being generated from his business the said Praveen Agarwal created a HUF viz. Praveen Agarwal HUF whose members were Praveen Agarwal (since deceased) and the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and the said Praveen Agarwal was the Karta thereof. On or about 18th October 2006 the said Praveen Agarwal through the said HUF along with his mother being the respondent no-3 herein had purchased an office space at Ashoka Chambers Room No-402 situated on the 4th Floor premises no-7, Garstin place Kolkata-700001, within the jurisdiction as aforesaid. The entire consideration amount thereof for the said office space had been duly paid by Praveen Agarwal (since deceased) out of his own personal funds. The said office was used and utilized by the said Praveen Agarwal during his lifetime for running his office from the said place. The respondent nos. 1, 2, and 6 have been carrying on business from the said office space being within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
On 14th July 2016 the said Praveen Agarwal died. At that point of time the petitioner no-1 was a homemaker and the petitioner no. 2 was a minor at that time. The petitioner no. 1 and 2 reposed their complete trust and faith in the respondents and did not interfere in the administration of the estate of the Late Praveen Agarwal.
The petitioner no. 1 and 2 were directed to shift to the family residence of the respondents at flat no-3A, Anant Apartments, 17/1E Alipore Road Kolkata-700027 being outside, the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The respondent no. 1 to 4 had represented and assured that the respondent no. 2 being the elder son would look into the entire finances including savings and investments and also the business of Praveen Agarwal (since deceased) and a fixed sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) per month would be provided to the petitioner no; 1 which would help her to meet her daily expenses.
Under the garb of protecting the interests of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 purported to take over the entire business and finances including savings and investments of the said Praveen Agarwal (since deceased) as well as that of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. In breach of the petitioner no. 1’s faith and trust reposed into the respondents, the respondent nos 1. and 2 purported to assume control over all assets of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2, who were prevented from dealing with the same without the respondent no. 2’s permission.
On or about June 2017, the petitioner no. 1 and 2 were constrained to move back to their present residence situated at flat no. 7B, Alipore Exatica 37B Alipore Road Kolkata-700027 outside the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Despite the said Praveen Agarwal (since deceased) having left crores of investments and savings as security for the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 the respondents Nos. 1 to 4, more particularly the respondent No. 2 attempted to deprive the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 of all their right and interest over the estate of Praveen Agarwal as well as the personal savings and investments of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 which resulted in grave financial difficulty. The petitioner No. 1 started providing private tuitions at home to support and sustain herself and her minor daughter.
The respondents particularly the respondent nos. 1 and 2 at all material times, have been making false assurances and promises to the petitioners the widow of the said Late Praveen Agarwal and his daughter who has only recently attained majority being the petitioner no. 2 in relation to various assets, business and properties of the joint family.
The estate of the said Praveen Agarwal is valued at over Rs. 15 Crores worth of assets which include both moveable and immoveable properties.
The petitioner no-1 and 2 by letters dated 17th February 2021, 5th July 2021, 28th July 2021, 24th September 2021, 3rd January 2022, 13th February 2023, and 23rd March 2023 to the respondents with a request to make over the share/entitlement of the petitioners in the joint family property and the estate of Late Praveen Kumar Agarwal but no heed was paid to the request.
The said Praveen Agarwal (since deceased) along with the petitioner no. 1 and Praveen Agarwal HUF held more than 51% shares in a family company, Mahalaxmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. along with Sawarlal Agarwal (HUF) whose members were the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Praveen Kumar Agarwal (since deceased). The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 as the legal heir of the said Proveen Agarwal (since deceased) are entitled to the shares held by Late Praveen Agarwal, Praveen Agarwal HUF and more than 16.6% shares held by Sawarlal Agarwal (HUF) in the said company, Mahalaxmi Vaniya Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioners are also entitled to the shares of the other family company namely. Pilling Builders Private Limited and IISCO Steel Limited apart from Mahalaxmi Vanijya Private Limited.
The respondent no. 2 has further wrong fully and illegally taken complete control of the said Mahalaxmi Industrial Corporation which was the proprietorship concern of the said Praveen Agarwal and no statement of accounts have been shared at any point of time.
Late Praveen Agarwal during his lifetime had also purchased a property situated at Durgapur Lane along with the petitioner no-1 and respondent nos. 1 and 3. The petitioners are entitled to 41.6% of shares in the aforesaid property situated outside the aforesaid jurisdiction.
The petitioners are the legal heirs of Praveen Agarwal (since deceased) and are also members of Praveen Agarwal (HUF) and by reasons whereof are entitled to 50% of share in the immoveable property situated at Garstin Place.
Proveen Agarwal (since deceased) and the respondent no. 2 were the co-owners of the Flat no-3A situated on the 3rd floor of Anant Apartment situated at 17/1E Alipore Road Kolkata-7000027 outside the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The petitioners are thus entitled to 33.3% of share in the said flat.
Praveen Agarwal (since deceased) during his lifetime had purchased a plot of land situated at Domjur admeasuring 1.0 Sataks, outside the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The petitioners are entitled to 66.6% of share in the said property.
Under the aforesaid circumstances the petitioners have filed the instant suit being partition and Administration Suit No. 134 of 2024 inter alia praying for the following reliefs:
„a) A decree for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/3rd share in immovable property being Serial No. 4 of Schedule being Annexure “R” hereto and also shares in other immovable and movable property belonging to the estate of Praveen Agarwal, and/or in respect of the joint family properties as mentioned in said Schedule;
Decree for partition of the suit properties described in Schedule being Annexure “R” hereto by metes and bounds according to the respective shares of the parties;
Preliminary decree for partition of the suit properties mentioned in Schedule being Annexure “R” hereto according to the respective shares of the parties mentioned in Schedule hereto;
Partition of the joint family properties both movables and immovables by metes and bounds in accordance with shares of the parties in such family companies, firms, HUFs and other entities as pleaded in paragraphs 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 39;
A fit and proper person be appointed as Commissioner of Partition to make an inventory of the all the movable and immovable properties of Praveen Agarwal and to file a report as to the partition of the same;
Mandatory injunction directing the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to furnish, disclose and produce all books of accounts and records of all companies to ascertain the issues and profits made out of the properties of the family through such companies and to hand over the respective shares to the plaintiffs from such usufructs;
Final Decree of partition be passed on the basis of the report of the Commissioner of Partition.
A decree for accounts as against the defendant nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and a decree for such sum to be paid upon such inquiry being made;
Decree for accounts of receipts and expenditures of the joint family properties.
Decree for mandatory injunction directing defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to forthwith deliver and make over to the plaintiffs National Saving Certificates and Fixed Deposits standing in the name of Late Praveen Agarwal;
Decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith make over to the plaintiffs the possession of the fixed assets as per Schedule being Annexure “R” hereto;
Decree for a sum of Rs. 33,40,000/- as pleaded in paragraphs 34 and 35 hereinabove;
Interest and interest pendent lite @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid sum;
Injunction;
Receiver;
Attachment;
Costs;
Other reliefs.
„21. Thereafter the petitioners have filed an application being registered as I.A. G.A. No. 1 of 2024, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs:-
The respondent nos. 1 to 4, and their men, servants, agents, assigns, and/or anyone claiming from or through them, be restrained from dealing with the assets and properties mentioned in Annexure “R” hereto, to the detriment of the petitioners, in any manner whatsoever;
An order of injunction be passed directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to furnish, disclose and produce all books of accounts and records of all companies to ascertain the issues and profits made out of the properties of the family through such companies and to hand over the respective shares to the petitioners from such usufructs;
An order of injunction be passed directing respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to forthwith deliver and make over to the plaintiffs National Saving Certificates and Fixed Deposits standing in the name of Late Praveen Agarwal;
A fit and proper person be appointed as a Receiver, with all powers under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to make inventory of the assets and properties left behind by Late Praveen Kumar Agarwal and also the joint family properties as mentioned in Annexure “R” hereto;
Ad interim orders in terms of prayers above;
Costs;
Such further and/or other order or orders as deemed fit and proper by this Hon‟ble Court;
The petitioners have obtained an ad-interim order dated 3rd July 2024, wherein this Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct the parties to maintain status quo with regard to all moveable and immoveable properties of the deceased Late Praveen Agarwal. The said interim order was extended from time to time and made absolute till disposal of the suit by order dated 5th February 2025.
The petitioners are thus entitled to the following shares in the respective immoveable properties.
23 Durgapur Lane, Kolkata-700027.
6. Garstin Place Room No-402 4th Floor Ashoka Chamber Kolkata-700001.
27/1E Alipore Road, Flat No. 3A 3rd Floor Anant Apartment Kolkata-700027.
Mouza Prosastha Dag No-88 under Khatian No-619, Police Station Domjur, District-Howrah.
The petitioners are further entitled to the following shares in the respective moveable properties.
Mahalaxmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd.
Praveen Agarwal Shares (68,000), 66.60%
Praveen Agarwal HUF shares (1,65,000) 100.00%
Sagar Mal Agarwal HUF shares (1,26,000) 16.6%
IISCO Steel Ltd.
Sagar Mal Agarwal HUF shares (9000) 16.67%.
Piling Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Praveen Agarwal shares (5000). 66.60%
Sagar Mal Agarwal HUF shares (1,50,000/-)-16.67%.
The petitioner are thus entitled to a decree of partition of the immoveable and moveable properties described in the schedules at Annexure ‘X’ and ‘Y’ of the plaint, left behind by Late Praveen Agarwal in accordance with the respective shares of the parties.
The defendant no-5/respondent no-5 has contested the application by filing affidavit in opposition. The said defendant has contended that the petition is not maintainable due to non-compliance of Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further contended that the Annexure X and Annexure Y, on which the case of the petitioners depend is incomplete, defective and arithmetically wrong. It is also contended that the two annexure which the petitioner has set out are entitlements of different parties in partition. On the issue of maintainability the charts relied upon by the petitioners namely Annexure X and Y are self prepared by the petitioner and are neither verified nor do they bear the consent or signature of all concerned parties to partition.
It is contended that there is complete suppression of material facts. In the year 2017 Respondent no-2 had paid the petitioner no- 1 and 2 a sum of Rs. 15 Crore from the family corpus of a respondent as a complete and final settlement amount was paid to the petitioner with the express understanding that no further claims would be made by the petitioners on the joint family properties and assets. It is further contended that the petitioners have admitted that the enterprise was family run concern meaning that the said companies would be conducted by and for collective benefit of all family members. The underlying wealth and assets upon which these family companies run is with labour, previous generations capital with the aim to cater to the benefit of all family members and at no point did such enterprises bear the exclusive proprietary character of a chosen few members.
It is also contended that the petitioners themselves recorded that upon the intestate demise of Late Praveen Agarwal his portion of the estate would devolve jointly upon his mother being Respondent No. 3 Petitioner no-1 and Petitioner no-2. This admission further re-inforces the status of the said property i.e. Flat at Exatica Alipore should be part of joint estates and therefore renders its exclusion from annexure X wholly inexplicable and impermissible despite clear admission on the part of the petitioner. It is submitted Annexure X is materially defective. The respondent no-5 has also disputed the purchase of Ashaka Chambers Room No-402, 4th Floor Premises No-7. Garstin Place, Kolkata-700001 by personal funds of Late Praveen Agarwal and also disputed the ownership of Anant apartment in Annexure R. The valuation of the estate of Late Praveen Agarwal is disputed.
It is contended that the petitioner no-2 stands guilty of unlawfully and surreptitiously procuring the transfer of shares 15000 IISCO Steel Private Limited belonging to Respondent no-5 to herself without consent of Respondent No.5.
It is further contended that letter issued by the Petitioner ought to have been addressed to respondent no-5 as well but she is kept in the dark. It is also contended that paragraph 26 to 28 are denied as follows:-
„35. With reference to paragraphs 26 to 28 of the Petition, save and except what are matters of record, the allegations therein, particularly those made against Respondent No. 5, are denied and disputed. I state as follows:-
i.That Annexure L to the Petition makes it abundantly clear that Mahalaxmi Vanijya Limited is a Private Limited Company, and that the Petitioner was herself a Director of the said Company during in the year 2023-24.
ii.The same annexure reveals that during the financial year 2023-2024, eight Board Meetings were held, all of which were attached by the Petitioner. Reference to page 78 to the Petition.
iii.The transfer of a total of 1,26,000 shares in the name of Sawarmal Agarwal (HUF) was effected on 24.11.2023 in favour of Respondent No. 2, over a board meeting where the Petitioner was present and had attended the said meeting as Director. I state that she was well aware of such transfer of shares of Sawarmal Agarwal HUF and also participated in such transfer. These are admitted facts, duly signed and filed before under MGT form with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs by the Company. The same form without contest the Petitioner has annexed as Annexure L to its Petition before this Court.
iv.The Petitioners own records being Annexure L, therefore irrefutably record that the Petitioner was fully aware of and expressly consented to the said transfer.
v.The Petitioner‟s attempt to allege otherwise in the body of the Petition in paragraph 27, and 28 is logically unsustainable, legally untenable, and at best, a convenient afterthought.
vi.I specifically deny that Mahalaxmi Vanijya Limited was not at any point a proprietorship concern of Late Praveen Agarwal and such is a fictional assertion and contradicted by the Company‟s corporate structure as shown in her own annexures being Annexure L.
vii.It is further evident from Annexure L that the Company was not under the exclusive management of Respondent No. 2, as melodramatically suggested, but was jointly managed by the Petitioner herself, in her capacity as Director.
viii.I state that a total of 1,26,000 shares in the name of Sawarmal Agarwal (HUF) was on 24.11.2023 was transferred to Mr. Naveen Agarwal, being Respondent No. 2-a fact within the Petitioner‟s personal knowledge and reflected in her own annexure being annexure L. I state that the Petitioner recording a claim of 16.67% shares out of 1,26,000 shares in the name of Sawarmal Agarwal (HUF) which is not in existence at the time of filing of the Petition collapses entirely.
ix.It is therefore respectfully submitted that Annexure Y is patently incorrect, with patent error on its face, and stands in stark and irreconcilable contradiction to Annexure L.
x.It is therefore humbly submitted that the Petitioner‟s own records clearly demonstrate that annexure Y bears errors on the face of it and ought to be rejected.
xi.It is humbly submitted this Hon‟ble Court cannot partition shares or address shares which are not in existence before this Court.‟
The paragraphs 27 and 28 of the petition are also denied by the respondent no-5 as follows:-
„36. I state with regards to paragraph 27 and 28 I deny and dispute the contents therein. I state that the Annexures M and N are not complete. I reserve the right to place appropriate submissions in relation to these annexures at the time of hearing.
i.Insofar as the shareholding of Sawarmal Agarwal (HUF) in Pilings Builders Private Limited is concerned-comprising 1,50,000 shares-where transferred on 16.12.2023, the details of such transfer are explicitly recorded at page 100 of the Petition itself.
ii.Consequently, Annexure Y to the Petitions, which purports to depict the existing shareholding structure as on the date of filing of the Petition, is factually incorrect and internally inconsistent when juxtaposed with Annexure M.
iii.I state that Annexure Y, which forms the very foundation and bedrock of the Petitioner‟s claim to partition and other reliefs in respect of the alleged movable assets of Late Praveen Agarwal, and therefore suffers from patent infirmities.
iv.The said chart is not merely misleading but bears errors apparent on the face of the record, rendering it an unreliable and defective basis for adjudication of the present claims.‟
It is contended that it is pivotal for this Hon’ble Court to determine what truly belongs to Provin. It is submitted that the Income Tax return is a far credible document to determine what the deceased Praveen deemed to be his. Thus Income Tax Return should be produced.
The petitioners pursuant to filing affidavit in opposition by respondent no-5 filed affidavit in reply repeating and re-iterating the contentions made in the petition. It is contended that the entitlement of the petitioners are in respect of 9000 shares of Sawarfal Agarwal HUF to the extent of 16.67%.. In relation to a company called Piling Builders Pvt. Ltd. the Petitioners are entitled to 66.60% of the 5000 shares held in the name of the deceased Mr. Praveen Kumar Agarwal. In addition thereto the Petitioners are also entitled to 16.67% of the 1,50,000 shares held by Sawarmal Agarwal (HUF) in the said company. The petitioners are also entitled to 66.60% of 68,000 shares held by Praveen Kumar Agarwal (HUF) in Mahalaxmi Vanijya. Pvt. Ltd. Furthermore the petitioners are entitled to 16.67%, of 12,6000 shares held by Sawarmal Agarwal HUF of the said Company. The defendant/respondent no-5 does not hold any shares in the companies and no dispute is raised by defendant no. 1 to 4 with regard to petitioner’s entitlement regarding percentage of shares. It is further contended that the petitioners are admittedly entitled to 41.07% share in the piece of land admeasuring 5 cattahs situated at 84, Alipore Road Kolkata-700027 which is presently known as 23, Durgapur Lane, Kolkata-700027. Furthermore the petitioners are entitled to 50% of the office space no. 402 situated on the 4th Floor, Ashoka Chambers at 6 Garstin place, Kolkata-700001.
During his lifetime Shri Praveen Kumar Agarwal had purchased a flat being Flat No. 3A situated at 3rd Floor, Anant Apartment 17/1E Alipore Road Kolkata-700027 jointly with his brother Shri Naveen Agarwal. The petitioners are entitled to 33% share in the said Flat. During his lifetime Shri Praveen Agarwal had also purchased in his own name land at Domjur Howrah. The petitioners are entitled to 66.66% share in the said land. It is also contended that the defendant no-1 to 4 have never sought to suggest that there has been any settlement between the petitioners and the defendant nos. 1 to 4 or that the petitioners have received any sum in lieu of such settlement. The defendant no-5 is the married daughter of the defendant nos. 1 to 3 and none of the immoveable properties regarding which the petitioners have claimed partition and apportionment of their aforesaid shares belong to the defendant no.5. Hence the defendant no-5 has no locus to oppose the application for preliminary decree filed by the petitioners.
The Respondent no-5 has filed a rejoinder to the affidavit in reply. The said respondent has disputed the entitlement of the petitioners in respect of 9000 shares purportedly held by Sawarmal Agarwal (HUF) to the extent of 16.67%. It is contended that the very existence of HUF is unproven, rendering the claims premature and illegal. The petitioners in the sur-Rejoinder denied the allegations made in the rejoinder and has contended that the rejoinder is not as per law and hence not maintainable.
Heard Learned Advocate for the petitioners perused the petition filed and materials on record.
Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the registered deeds of immoveable property for which partition are sought for are as follows:-
By virtue of Deed of Conveyance date 5th February 2007, 1) Partha Banerjee, 2) Maya Banerjee, 3) Debasish Banerjee, 4) Mukunda Mohan Banerjee, 5) Chameli Ganguly, 6) Gobinda Mohan Banerjee and 7) Prasanta Banerjee said 23 Durgapur Lane Alipore Kolkata-700027 to 1) Sawarmal Agarwal, 2) Monjie Agarwal, 3) Late Praveen Agarwal, 4) Payal Agarwal.
ii) By virtue of indenture of Conveyance dated 18th October 2006, M/S Garstin Properties Private Limited sold office space being Room No-402 situated at 4th Floor Ashoka Chamber 6 Garstin Place Kolkata-700001. To 1) Manju Agarwal, 2) Praveen Agarwal (HUF)
iii) By virtue of sub-clause dated 30th March 1992 R.B. construction sub-leased. Flat no-3A/Unit No. A-1) situated on 3rd floor of Anant Apartment, Alipore to 1) Sri Navin Kumar Agarwal and 2) Praveen Kumar Agarwal.
iv) By virtue of Deed of sale dated 25th May 2005 Surendra Kumar Khetawat sold land at Domjur, Howrah to late Praveen Kumar Agarwal.
Learned Advocate further submits that the defence pleaded by the defendant no-5 is hit by the prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act 1988. In any event the properties in question are individually assessed to tax and are not held by the Karta of HUF or any member of Hindu Undivided Family for the benefit of any person other than those in whose names, the properties are standing. In fact the deeds of conveyance show the consideration paid by the purchasers named in the said deeds.
Learned Advocate relies upon the following judicial decesions:-
Mangathal Ammal VS Rajeswari and ors. Reported in (2020) 17 SCC. 496.
Jamila Begum VS Shami Mahal. Reported in (2019) 2 SCC. 727.
Vimal Chand Chevarchand Jain VS Ramakant Eknath Jadoo. Reported in (2009) 5 SCC. 713.
Upon hearing the Learned Advocate for the petitioner and upon perusing the materials on record it appears that defendants no. 1 to 4 did not appear to contest the suit. Although defendant no-5 opposed this application but no written statement is filed by the said defendant denying the allegations made in the plaint.
Although the petitioners in their affidavit in reply in paragraph 12 contended that defendant no-5 has no shares in the immoveable properties regarding which the petitioners have claimed partition but such contention is not specifically denied in rejoinder filed by the defendant no-5.
Similarly the contention of the petitioners in paragraph 6 of the Affidavit in reply that defendant no-5 does not held any shares in the companies namely Pilling Builders Pvt. Ltd., Mahalaxmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. and IISCO steel Ltd. is not specifically denied by the defendant no-5 in rejoinder.
Considering the fact that defendant no-1 to 4 have not filed any written statement denying the right of the petitioners nor have filed opposition to the prayer for preliminary decree, and the fact defendant no-5 has no shares on the immoveable properties on which plaintiffs/petitioners sought partition nor has any shares in the Company which is the subject matter of partition, and the petitioners have specifically established the right to get the suit properties partitioned the petitioners are entitled to get the preliminary decree as prayed for. Thus this application GA-3 of 2025 stands be allowed.
Let there be an order in terms of Prayer a) b and c) of the notice of motion. Dated 14th May 2025.
Mr. Indrajit Sarkar member Bar Library Club and Ms. Ipsita Ghosh Learned Advocate Ph: - 8961069112 are appointed as Joint Special Officers. Learned Special Officers shall at the outset hold discussions with the parties and try to mediate so that amicable settlement and partition is arrived at between the parties. In the event amicable partition can be arrived at Learned Special Officers shall record the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties and submit report in Court. In the event settlement fails the Special Officers shall mention the same in the report and assume the jurisdiction of Advocate Commissioner. Thereafter the Learned Special Officers shall cause enquiry at the suit property, take measurements by appointing surveyor and valuer to partition the property by metes and bounds. Learned Commissioners/special officers shall submit report about progress by 11/09/2026.
The Learned Special Officers are entitled to an initial remuneration of 1200 G.M. each to be shared by the parties. Incidental Costs shall also be borne by the parties.
Fix 11/09/2026 for report of the Learned Commissioners/special officers.