Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Anirban Chakraborty vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 30 January, 2019
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
30.1.2019
Court No. 19
Item No. 49
Ashoke
W.P. 16696(W) of 2018
Anirban Chakraborty
-versus-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Pinaki Dhole.
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Amrit Lal Chatterjee.
... For the State.
Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record.
It appears that the respondent nos. 5 & 7 are unrepresented. The postal
envelope returned with the endorsement 'Addressee Moved'.
The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated February 8, 2018 passed by the Chairman, Maintenance Tribunal & S.D.O., Ranaghat, as also the order dated May 28, 2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Nadia, under Section 16 of the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').
The fact of the case is that the grandfather of the petitioner who is the respondent no. 5 had gifted certain properties to the petitioner. Thereafter, the grandfather wanted to revoke the gift deed. According to him, the said gift deed was executed by him under coercion and pressure of the petitioner's father. Thereafter, the petitioner's grandfather, the respondent no. 5, filed an application under the provision of the said Act and prayed for declaration that the deed of gift was void because the said deed of gift was not executed voluntarily. It appears from the order of the S.D.O. dated February 8, 2018 that the deed of gift was declared to be void at the option of the transferor, i.e. the respondent no. 5, by invoking the power under Section 23 of the said Act.
It appears that a civil suit being Title Suit No. 151 of 2017 is pending in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 1st Court at Ranaghat, Nadia, on the self-same cause of action. This fact was also brought to the notice of S.D.O. The S.D.O. has also come to a conclusion that the father of the petitioner was bound to provide basic amenity and basic physical needs to the petitioner, but instead of doing so he had created obstruction in free movement of the respondent no. 5. However, there is also an observation that the said fact of obstruction was not corroborated by the police report.
The order passed by the District Magistrate prima facie suffers from lack of jurisdiction.
Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and considering the materials on record, this court prima-facie finds that the petitioner has made out an arguable case.
The order dated February 8, 2018 and the order dated May 28, 2018 shall remain stayed for a period of six weeks or until further orders whichever is earlier.
Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within three weeks, reply, if any, be filed within a week thereafter.
Let this matter appear in the monthly combined list of March, 2019.
Liberty is granted to the petitioner to pray for extension of the interim order.
In the mean time, the petitioner is directed to serve copy of this writ petition alongwith a server copy of this order upon the respondent nos. 5 & 7.
In case, the address of the respondent nos. 5 & 7 cannot be ascertained, then an attempt shall be made by the learned advocate-on-record of the petitioner to serve copy of this writ petition and the server copy of this order upon the learned advocate appeared on their behalf before the Trial Court in the Title Suit.
If necessary, insertion shall be made in two daily newspapers.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.) 1 2