Satyendra Lal Nath vs The Commissioner Of Police & Ors on 11 August, 2016

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Satyendra Lal Nath vs The Commissioner Of Police & Ors on 11 August, 2016

Bench: Joymalya Bagchi

                                1


12                               W.P. 14674(W) of 2016
rkd   11.08.16                           With
                                 W.P. 3112(W) of 2015


                                Satyendra Lal Nath
                                       -vs-
                          The Commissioner of Police & Ors.


                 Mr. Subir Ranjan Ghosh
                                                    .....for the Petitioners.
                 Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharyya

                                           .....for the Private Respondent.

Mr. Subhabrata Datta, Mr. Tapas Kr. Mandal .....for the State in W.P. 14674 (w) of 2016. Mr. Subhabrata Dattta, Mr. Buddhadeb Bhuniya .....for the State in W.P. 3112 (w) of 2015. In Re: W.P. 3112 (w) of 2015 Petitioner has assailed a deed of conveyance dated 14.12.1988 executed in the name of private respondent with regard to premises no.1E/7B, Chittaranjan Colony, Jadavpur, Kol-32. It is contended by the petitioner that although the said premises was settled in his favour by the respondent nos.3 and 4, the respondents have illegally executed the deed in favour of respondent no.6 i.e. his wife.

I find that the deed was executed way back in 1988 and the challenge in respect thereof has been 2 made in the writ petition in 2015. I do not find any pleading in the petition as to why the said instrument had not been challenged earlier.

On the other hand, I find that a matrimonial dispute had cropped by and between the petitioner and the private respondent no.6 in 2014 and over such issue the instant prayer is made.

I am of the opinion that the matrimonial dispute may be resolved by and between the parties in accordance with law. However, in view of the fact that the deed was executed in 1988. I am unwilling to accept the contention of the petitioner that he was unaware of such circumstance and in the light of the aforesaid factual matrix I am unwilling to entertain the prayer of the petitioner to cancel the said deed executed in favour of his wife after lapse of about four decades.

Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

In Re: W.P. 14674 (w) of 2016 The petitioner has complained that the private respondent nos.5 to 9 herein are interfering with his peaceful occupation and enjoyment of the premises being no.1E/7B, Chittaranjan Colony, Jadavpur, Kol- 3

32. It appears that a matrimonial dispute has arisen between the petitioner and the private respondent no.6 and over such issue it is alleged that the private respondents are threatening and intimating the petitioner and are resorting the acts of violence. It is open to the petitioner to institute appropriate criminal proceeding against the said private respondents if they indulge in acts of violence. However, in view of the nature of dispute which is a matrimonial one between the petitioner and private respondent no.6 I am of the opinion that adjudication of such issue in exercise of writ jurisdiction is impermissible.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

Affidavit-in-opposition having not been called upon the allegations made in the writ petition are not deemed to be admitted by the respondents.

Urgent photostat certified copy, if applied for, be given to the parties subject to all requisite formalities.

(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)