Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 28701 (CAL)

SUNANDA CHATTERJEE AND ORS v. TUSHIMA SAHA AND ORS

CO/2176/2026 · 2026-07-10

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Court No. 19 (265719) 10.07.2026 (AD 13) (S. Banerjee) CO 2176 of 2026 Smt. Sunanda Chatterjee & Ors. Vs. Smt. Tushima Saha & Ors. Mr. Asif Hussain Mr. Swapan Nath Ms. Shreyasi Nath …for the petitioners This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 and is directed against the order dated April 27, 2026 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 8th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 990 of 2020. By the order impugned, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioner stood rejected. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that it is the specific case made out in the plaint that the opposite-party no. 1 is the daughter of Nirendra Mohan Chatterjee and Mira Chatterjee. He further submits that along with the plaint the opposite-party no. 1 has filed a marriage certificate of her parents wherefrom it appears that the date of marriage of the parents of the opposite-party no. 1 is August 7, 1989 and the PAN card of the opposite- party no. 1 produced along with the plaint shows that the date of birth of the opposite-party is prior to the 2 date of marriage of her parents. He, therefore, submits that the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action. He further submits that in the plaint the opposite-party no. 1 has claimed that her father acquired right, title and interest in the suit property from his grand father by virtue of a Will. He submits that the Will was probated after the death of the father of the opposite-party no. 1. The PAN card cannot be said to be a proof of the date of birth of a person. Thus, merely on the basis of recording of the date of birth in the PAN, the plaint cannot be rejected. That apart, the fact whether the opposite-party no. 1 is an heir of Nirendra Mohan Chatterjee and Mira Chatterjee, are triable issue in the suit as rightly observed by the learned trial judge. It is the further case of the opposite-party no. 1 in the plaint that Surendra Mohan Chatterjee executed his last will and testament dated April 26, 1949 bequeathing the property in question in favour of his grand sons namely Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, Nirendra Mohan Chatterjee and Saurindar Mohan Chatterjee. Surendra Mohan Chatterjee died on March 20, 1962 and Narendra Mohan Chatterjee died intestate on March 31, 2009. Since the Will executed by Surendra Mohan Chatterjee has been duly probated, this Court is not inclined to accept the 3 contention of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. The learned trial judge assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such order. Accordingly, CO 2176 of 2026 stands dismissed. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)