The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking partition of a disputed property, holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish any right, title, interest or possession over the land in question. A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur and Justice Atarup Banerjee upheld the trial court’s decision, finding no legal infirmity or perversity in its judgment.
In Safikul Islam Khan v. Dhulo Sk. & Ors., the Court examined the parties’ competing claims concerning land records, previous transfers and the omission of certain interested parties from the partition proceedings.
The dispute concerned land originally held by several co-sharers. The appellant claimed that an amicable partition had taken place among the original holders and that subsequent transfers had given him an interest in the property. He relied on registered deeds and an order passed by the Block Land and Land Reforms Office (BL&LRO), which led to corrections in the land records.
The appellant contended that the property remained unpartitioned and sought its formal division. The respondents opposed the claim, arguing that the property had already been divided, the appellant had no legal right over the disputed land, and the suit suffered from an unclear property description and the non-joinder of necessary parties.
On July 31, 2014, the trial court dismissed the partition suit, finding that the appellant had failed to establish any right, title, interest or possession over the disputed plot. The appellant subsequently challenged the decision before the Calcutta High Court.
The Court observed:
“A partition of a property can be only among those having a share or interest in it. ‘Separation of share’ is a species of ‘partition’. The right of partition being a consequence of co-ownership – once it is found by the Court of Law that the parties are co-owners, a suit for partition cannot be resisted by the defendant. A co-owner is entitled to demand partition of a joint property as matter of right. The co-owner demands the other co-owners to effect partition amicable and that is refused, any co-owner may exercise such right by instituting a suit for partition.”
The Bench found that the disputed plot No. 1665 comprised 41 decimals and that the appellant had no right, title, interest or possession over it. The Bench noted that the parties' primary source of right, title and interest in the property was the Revisional Settlement Record of Rights (RSROR), finally published sometime in the early 1950s, which none of the parties had challenged.
The Court also noted that other persons having rights, title or interests in the disputed property had not been impleaded as parties to the suit.
Finding no legal infirmity or perversity in the trial court’s judgment, the Calcutta High Court affirmed the dismissal of the partition suit and dismissed the appeal. The Court made no order as to costs.
Case Title: Safikul Islam Khan v. Dhulo Sk. & Ors.
Case Number: F.A. 303 of 2014
