Anecdotes

H. SANYAL

Mr. Sanyal, an American citizen filed a partition suit at Alipore Judge’s Court against other co-sharers claiming his 1/5th share . Preliminary decree was passed. Defendant no.1 died and his legal heirs obtained a stay order in the partition suit stating that a Probate proceeding is pending adjudication. Calcutta High Court observed that as the Probate proceeding is with regard to the 1/5th share of the defendant no. 1 hence, the final decree can be drawn up in the partition suit.

S. SASMAL

Mr. Sasmal, a manager in a private bank initiated a Matrimonial suit against his wife on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. The wife contested the suit. After undergoing several rounds of mediation, both the husband and the wife settled for a mutual divorce and the custody of both the children remained with the father.

D. GHOSH

The wife filed a series of litigations against Mr. Ghosh, a marine engineer. With effective mediation both the parties settled their prolonged legal battle.

B. K. CHAKRABORTY

Mr. Chakraborty filed a complaint before the consumer forum against the developer for not handing over the owner’s allocation within the stipulated time. The consumer forum allowed his application and the deed concerning owners allocation was registered by the intervention of the court.

A. MUKHERJEE

The elder sister filed the suit for partition in respect of the dwelling house and the business against her brother Mr. Mukherjee. The court held that from the documents adduced as evidence, the mother, since deceased, was the sole proprietor of the said business and entered into an agreement of partnership with her son, at the fag end of her life. The business acquired the status of a partnership firm only for a period of 3 (three) days and it stood dissolved automatically with the demise of the mother by operation of law. The recital in the deed and wish of the mother was that the business should continue in any event. Mr Mukherjee continued the business as a proprietor. The court held that the the sister is not entitled to claim any right in the said business.

KAMALIKA

Husband sought for divorce which was granted. Kamalika preferred an appeal before the Calcutta High Court. The Court sent the matter to mediation which failed. However, at the intervention of the court, the matter was resolved. The husband paid a lump sum amount and agreed to pay a monthly maintenance of the child till she attains the age of majority.

D. CHAKRABORTY

The case revolved around a sale deed executed by the Commissioner under Bengal Waqf Act 1934. It was held by Calcutta High court that since the sale deed in respect of a land in favour of D. Chakraborty was effected in the year 1967, that is, prior to coming into force of the 1973 Amendment of the Bengal Waqf Act, 1934, the original provisions governed such transfers at the relevant juncture, conferring power on the Commissioner to permit such transfer. Hence, the argument as regards the Commissioner having no jurisdiction to permit such transfer does not hold good.
The other leg of objection taken by the petitioner regarding such transfer, being that the waqfnama specifically debarred the transfer of the waqf property, cannot be accepted as well.
A conjoint reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 53, along with Section 54 of the said Act, as they originally stood before the 1973 Amendment, which provided that a mutawalli may apply to the Commissioner for sanction to transfer under sub-section (1) of Section 53, categorically exhibit that a scenario of seeking permission from the Commissioner would arise only when the transfer-in-question was not made under an express power conferred by the waqf deed.
In such circumstances only, a permission was necessary, the power for granting which was conferred on the Commissioner under Section 54.
In the present case, since the waqf deed apparently debarred a transfer, the situation fell within the purview of Section 53(2), as no express power was conferred by the waqf deed for such transfer. Section 53(1), read with Section 54 of the 1934 Act, as it stood originally, thus came into play and validated the 1967 transfer in favour of our client, being effected by the then mutawalli with the permission/sanction of the Commissioner.
The Hon’ble court held that the said sale deed of 1967, in favour of our client stands on a firm legal footing and was lawfully executed on the face of it.