Introduction
An appeal has been filed by Sri Arun Das, son of late Chaya Ranjan Das, resident of Anandanagar against the judgement passed by the learned Addl. District Judge who dismissed the first appeal affirming the original judgment and decree dated 18.06.2015. This raises concerns over several issues arising from the divorce.
Facts of the Case
The Plaintiff had instituted a suit for partition of the suit land mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. It is the case of the Plaintiff after her marriage with the Defendant they jointly purchased the suit property. The Plaintiff further alleged that on 27.07.2012 her husband i.e. the Respondent herein, had entered into a second marriage and drove her out from her matrimonial home. Plaintiff had moved toward the spouse litigant to parcel the suit land in an equivalent offer for example 50:50 proportion, yet, the Respondent didn’t pay any regard to it. Consequently, she asserted a segment of the suit land portrayed in the timetable of the plaintiff. The appealing party litigant, who is the spouse of the offended party, discrediting the reliefs guaranteed by the Plaintiff had raised the request of practicality in his composed assertion, and all the averments made by the offended party in that were denied. The litigant explicitly rejected that the suit land was mutually bought by Plaintiff and Defendant. Rather, Defendant stated that he purchased the suit land for his benefit, and out of their relation, he included Plaintiff’s name in the registered sale deed. The Defendant further denied that he entered into a second marriage and drove his wife (Plaintiff) out of his house. The Defendant further denied the right of Plaintiff to claim the suit property and prayed for dismissal of the suit. The learned First Appellate Court rejected the theory of fiduciary relationship as urged by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendant-husband in absence of pleading in the written statement. As needs be, the allure liked by the litigant spouse was excused with the certification of the judgment and pronouncement passed by the learned preliminary Court whereby and whereunder, the Courts underneath announced the correct title and interest of the offended party over the half segment of the suit land and passed an Order for the segment. The dismissal of the first appeal has prompted the Defendant-husband to prefer the present second appeal.
Arguments made on behalf of Defendant
Heard Mrs S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendant, Appellant-husband fought that the words “fiduciary relationship” must be assembled from the language of the entire substance of the composed explanation. Her pointed submission was that the defendant specifically stated in his written statement that the suit land was purchased for his benefit and he only included the name of his wife viable that she was his better half as the two of them at the hour of exchange was living under shared “trust” and driving their life as fiduciary relationship having total certainty upon his significant other which affected him to remember her name for the deal deed. The Defendant prayed for dismissal of the judgment and decree passed in favour of the Plaintiff by the Courts below since, the discoveries returned by the Courts beneath experienced confusion and wrong translation of law and misreading of current realities as argued followed by confirmations illustrated in proof by the separate gatherings.
Arguments made on behalf of Respondent
Mr Roy, learned counsel showing up for the Respondent-spouse battled that the land was bought to help the spouse and offspring of the Respondent and the offended party. He contended that the offended party had contributed a significant sum alongside the Respondent from her “Stridhan” to pay the complete thought cash. Learned advice further contended that the offended party had no type of revenue and she was driven out by the Respondent driving her to establish the current suit for the parcel of the suit land since she was qualified to get her offer equivalent to that of the Respondent.
Court’s Decision
After reviewing all the arguments made and the evidence produced the Court said that the instant appeal filed by the husband-defendant/appellant must succeed and accordingly, the present second appeal stands allowed.
Click here to view the Judgement.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
