Pradip Kumar Dutt Vs. Siddartha Chatterjee and ors.

Pradip Kumar Dutt vs Siddartha Chatterjee and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Nov 22, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1098159

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1098159
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Banerjee
Decided On: Nov 22, 2013
Subject: FERA

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

FERA

Key legal issue: FERA

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pradip Kumar Dutt

Respondent

Siddartha Chatterjee and ors.

Excerpt

.....side pradip kumar dutt versus siddartha chatterjee & ors.before: the hon'ble justice ashim kumar banerjee, acj. the hon'ble justice debangsu basak date : 22nd november, 2013. the court : this appeal would involve a pure question of law as to whether in the given circumstance section 15 (1)(a) or 15 (2)(a) of the hindu succession act, 1956 would apply. the suit would involve a property left by a female hindu who left her surviving her husband as well as her daughter from the firs.marriage of the lady. pertinent to note, the lady married second time and the plaintiff/appellant is the second husband. inherited the property from her parents. the female hindu talked about, under section 15 (1)(a) the property should go to her children and the husband whereas section 15(2)(a) would debar the husband to get it in absence of any children. the learned judge, however, accepted the interpretation given by the respondent on section 15 (2)(a) to the extent, since the widow left her own daughter by the firs.marriage, the property would go to her as a firs.class heir and the husband would not get it. the learned judge declined to pass an interim order of injunction and doubted the maintainability of the suit. his lordship, however, did not finally decide the issue that was left to be decided at the final hearing of the suit. mr.ghosh appearing for the respondent prays for four weeks’ time to file written statement. let him do so. plaintiff is also directed to complete service of the writ of summons upon the other defendants. parties would be at liberty to approach the learned single judge taking up the suit for fixing an early date of hearing as soon as the suit becomes ready. the parties should maintain status quo as of date with regard to ownership and possession of the subject property till the suit is disposed of. accordingly, this appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs. (ashim kumar banerjee, acj.) (debangsu basak, j.) akb/

Full Judgment

ORDER

SHEET APO315OF 2013 CS241OF 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE PRADIP KUMAR DUTT Versus SIDDARTHA CHATTERJEE & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, ACJ.

The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 22nd November, 2013.

The Court : This appeal would involve a pure question of law as to whether in the given circumstance Section 15 (1)(a) or 15 (2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would apply.

The suit would involve a property left by a female Hindu who left her surviving her husband as well as her daughter from the fiRs.marriage of the lady.

Pertinent to note, the lady married second time and the plaintiff/appellant is the second husband.

inherited the property from her parents.

The female Hindu talked about, Under Section 15 (1)(a) the property should go to her children and the husband whereas Section 15(2)(a) would debar the husband to get it in absence of any children.

The learned Judge, however, accepted the interpretation given by the respondent on Section 15 (2)(a) to the extent, since the widow left her own daughter by the fiRs.marriage, the property would go to her as a fiRs.class heir and the husband would not get it.

The learned Judge declined to pass an interim order of injunction and doubted the maintainability of the suit.

His Lordship, however, did not finally decide the issue that was left to be decided at the final hearing of the suit.

Mr.Ghosh appearing for the respondent prays for four weeks’ time to file written statement.

Let him do so.

Plaintiff is also directed to complete service of the writ of summons upon the other defendants.

Parties would be at liberty to approach the learned Single Judge taking up the suit for fixing an early date of hearing as soon as the suit becomes ready.

The parties should maintain status quo as of date with regard to ownership and possession of the subject property till the suit is disposed of.

Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs.

(ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, ACJ.) (DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) akb/

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2013 Same Parties Pradip Kumar Dutt vs Siddartha Chatterjee and ors. Same Subject FERA Same Judge Banerjee