Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sandhyarani Mondal @ Sandhya Mondal & ... vs Dhananjoy Ghosh & Anr on 26 September, 2022
26.09.2022 Item No.11 Court No.6.
S. De C.P.A.N. 1171 of 2019 in F.A. 153 of 2019 I.A. CAN 1 of 2016 (Old No. CAN/6833/2016) I.A. CAN 2 of 2018 (Old No. CAN/6076/2018) I.A. CAN 3 of 2019 (Old No. CAN/2025/2019) I.A. CAN 4 of 2019 (Old No. CAN/2245/2019) I.A. CAN 5 of 2019 (Old No. CAN/3401/2019) I.A. CAN 6 of 2019 (Old No. CAN/3402/2019) Sandhyarani Mondal @ Sandhya Mondal & Ors.
Vs Dhananjoy Ghosh & Anr.
Mr. Bidhayak Lahiri, Ms. Bhaswati Lahiri, ...for the petitioners.
Mr. Moni Shankar Chattopadhyay, Ms. Munmun Biswas, ...for the alleged contemnors. One Haradhan Ghosh died leaving behind six legal heirs i.e. four daughters and two sons. The four daughters are the petitioners in this contempt application. The two sons are the alleged contemnors.
Haradhan apparently left behind a Will. The executor named in the Will applied for probate thereof in the Suri Court. The daughters of Haradhan contested such application. The probate proceeding 2 was dismissed. The executor preferred an appeal before this Court being FAT 131 of 2016.
On October 5, 2016, a Co-ordinate Bench passed the order, violation whereof is alleged in this contempt application. The order restrained the parties from transferring and/or selling and/or alienating and/or creating any third party interest in respect of any of the properties belonging to the estate of Haradhan Ghosh covered by the Will published on 19 th April, 1996 till the disposal of the stay application being CAN 6833 of 2016.
The petitioners allege that with full knowledge of the said restraint order, the alleged contemnors have sold off part of the land belonging to the estate of Haradhan.
The alleged contemnors say that they were not aware of the restraint order. They were not parties to the appeal nor are they parties to the appeal now. However, had they been aware of the restraint order, they surely would not have sold the land in question. They tender unqualified apology.
We see that the dispute is between siblings. The alleged contemnors and the petitioners say that they are prepared to settle the matter amicably. The properties left behind by Haradhan should be divided equally amongst the brothers and sisters. We are 3 happy to hear that the parties are prepared to make an effort to settle the matter.
As requested by learned advocates for the parties, let this matter be listed again on November 15, 2022. We sincerely hope that the petitioners and the alleged contemnors who are the only legal heirs of Haradhan, would resolve the dispute amicably. (Apurba Sinhe Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)