Calcutta High Court
Mrinal Kanti Majumdar & Ors vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-I on 8 July, 2008
Author: Surinder Singh Nijjar
Bench: Surinder Singh Nijjar, Pinaki Chandra Ghose
GA No. 342 of 2008
A.P.O.434 of 2007
A.P.O.T. 497 of 2007
W.P.No.2176 of 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Original Side
MRINAL KANTI MAJUMDAR & ORS. Appellant/Petitioners
Versus
CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I Defendant/Respondent
KOLKATA & ORS.
For Appellants/Petitioners : Mr. A.Majumdar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. D.Som, Sr.Advocate with Mrs. Chourashia, Advocate BEFORE:
The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND The Hon'ble JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE Date : 8th July, 2008.
THE COURT : (ORAL) This application being G.A.342 of 2008 has been filed by one Sakuntala Bera through the constituted attorney one Ratan Goel praying before us for addition of parties. The only averment that has been made in the petition is that the petitioner having right, title and interest to the extent of an undivided 1/3rd share in the property/premises in question. There is no document annexed to the petition even to prove their locus or interest in respect of the property in question. It is submitted by Mr. Majumdar appearing in support of this application that the 2 petitioner is a legal heiress of Niranjan Shaw and it is further stated that Kartick Chandra Shaw, since deceased, left behind him surviving his three sons, namely, (1) Narayan Chandra Shaw, (2) Man Gobinda Shaw and (3) Niranjan Shaw. It is also stated in the petition that Niranjan Shaw died intestate at Midnapore, leaving behind him surviving the petitioners being the only daughter as his heiress and legal representative. To substantiate this averment in the petition, no particulars have been furnished. It is also not known when Niranjan Shaw died. It is also not clear from the petition that any succession certificate or any probate was granted in favour of the petitioner.
However, at this stage, we do not find that it would be reasonable for us to add the petitioner on the facts as pleaded before us in the petition. If the petitioner has any right in the matter in question, the petitioner can ventilate such right before the appropriate forum to establish herself being the heiress of his father and further the father who also inherited the property in question is under challenge before the Income Tax authority.
The petitioner was also not before the Hon'ble First Court when the matter was taken up by the Hon'ble First Court. Hence we do not think that it is necessary to add the petitioner in this proceeding.3
Hence this application is dismissed without any order as to costs.
All parties concerned are to act on a xerox signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order be made available to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.
( SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,C.J.) ( PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.) Rsg.