Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 73532 (CAL)

DOLI SAHA @ DALI SAHA v. KALPANA ROY SAHA AND ORS

FAT/14/2023 · 2025-11-17

Debangsu Basak, Md Shabbar Rashidi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 FAT 14 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi FAT 14 of 2023 Smt. Doli Saha @ Dali Saha Vs. Smt. Kalpana Roy Saha & Ors. For the appellant :Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharya, Advocate Mr. Haider Ali, Advocate Mr. Satyam Sarkar, Advocate Mr. Alok Sah, Advocate For the respondents : Ms. Rima Sarkar, Advocate Ms. Sidhi Sethia, Advocate Heard & Judgment on : November 17, 2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:- 1. Appeal is directed against a preliminary decree. 2. Preliminary decree was passed in a suit for partition. 3. Preliminary decree declares the respective shares of the parties to the suit for partition. It directs the immovable property in the suit for partition to be divided by metes and bounds. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the immovable property concerned cannot be divided by metes and bounds 2 FAT 14 of 2023 since the immovable property is not owned by the parties to the suit. He points out that, the immovable property concerned is to be treated as a lease under a natural person. 5. The plaintiff to the suit is represented. 6. Learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that, the parties to the suit are raiyats under the State of West Bengal in view of the provisions of the land reforms that were undertaken in the State of West Bengal. 7. State is not a party to the suit for partition. 8. Apparently, the issue as to non-partibility of the suit property involved was not raised in the written statement, as sought to be raised before us. 9. Apparently, the parties to the suit appear to be raiyats under the State of West Bengal by virtue of the land reforms undertaken. 10. In absence of any cohesive evidence to support the claim of the appellant as canvassed before us, we are not minded to interfere with the present appeal. 11. FAT 14 of 2023 is disposed of without any order as to costs. (Debangsu Basak, J.) 12. I agree. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.) (AD)