Calcutta High Court
Santosh Kumar Mullick vs Bhagabat Kumar Mallick & Ors on 31 March, 2011
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
GA No. 2367 of 2008
GA NO.133 OF 2009
GA NO.365 OF 2010
CS No. 262 of 1951
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SANTOSH KUMAR MULLICK
Versus
BHAGABAT KUMAR MALLICK & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
Date : 31st March, 2011.
Appearance:
Mr. A. C. Kar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sakya Sen, Adv.
Mr. P. Saha, Adv.
Mr. Raja Basu Chowdhury, Adv.
Ms. Sutapa Sanyal, Adv.
Mr. Aniruddha Roy, Adv.
The Court : GA No.2367 of 2008 is an application made pursuant to the liberty reserved under a scheme formulated by this Court in the year 1961. The application is by one of the Shebaits of the fourth defendant deity. One of the other Shebaits, Hasi Chatterjee, is also represented.2
The application is for sale of premises no.69, Narkeldanga Main Road which, according to the appearing parties, is completely occupied. The land measures approximately 9 cottah but, according to the applicant, it is completely encroached on.
The highest offer received is of Rs.26 lakh from Santanu Das of near South Gol Park, HP Town, Sodepur, Calcutta 700 110. The initial offer was less than Rs.10 lakh whereupon the Court declined to sell the property but in view of the offer having been substantially increased and the appearing parties saying that due to the encroachments on the land the trust does not have any meaningful use thereof, the sale of the property at 69, Narkeldanga Main Road is confirmed in favour of Santanu Das at Rs.26 lakh subject to the entire consideration being received within four weeks from date. The earnest deposit tendered to the joint managing trustees will be returned and the purchaser must put in the entire consideration within the time indicated such that the instrument is encashed before such date. The joint managing trustees will make over a certificate of possession after the entire payment is received and the relevant instrument is encashed, but the joint managing trustees would not be required to make over actual physical possession of the land in question to the purchaser.3
The conveyance should be executed within four weeks of the draft deed of conveyance being supplied by the purchaser, subject to the joint managing trustees agreeing with the draft deed.
The appearing parties agree that the entire proceeds from the sale of the Narkeldanga property should be invested by way of a fixed deposit and not touched until further orders of Court.
GA No.2367 of 2008 is disposed of without any order as to costs.
GA No.133 of 2009 is an application for accounts to be rendered by one of the erstwhile joint managing trustees. Mr. Asim Kumar Chatterjee, Advocate, has filed an affidavit wherein the collections and expenses have been detailed. At paragraph 10 of the affidavit there is a mistake in the figure in the second column which should read as Rs.28,159/- and not Rs.2,81,159/-. It is evident that the amount of Rs.28,159/- is the sum of the amounts expended in the years 2006, 2007 and a part of 2008 as would appear from pages 8, 9 and 10 of the affidavit.
It is submitted on behalf of Mr. Arup Nath Bhattacharya, one of the joint managing trustees appointed by an order dated September 8, 2008 that the details of the money received and money remaining in the bank have been furnished to the petitioner in GA No.133 of 2009 4 but such petitioner has not acknowledged the same. A one-page statement of accounts relating to the bank details of State Bank account no.506753 has been made over to the petitioner in Court today.
Abstracts of accounts should be prepared by the joint managing trustees on six-monthly basis and circulated to the parties.
GA No.133 of 2009 is disposed of without any order as to costs. Though the third application, GA No.365 of 2010, is for the removal of one of the joint managing trustees, the petitioning Shebait does not insist on the removal of the joint managing trustee but says that the residential premises should be repaired immediately. In particular, the complaint is that the staircase is falling apart and has not been repaired despite previous orders. The joint managing trustees, Mr. Arup Nath Bhattacharya and Ms. Krishna Mullick, Advocates, are requested to ensure that an engineer or surveyor is immediately appointed for the purpose of assessing the nature of the damage and the expenses necessary for repairing the same. The engineer or surveyor should be appointed within a period of a fortnight from date.
The joint managing trustees will thereafter convene a meeting of the Shebaits and inform them of the position. If the funds available 5 with the joint managing trustees at the relevant time permit them to undertake the repair work, then the repair work should be completed as expeditiously as possible. If additional funds are required, the joint managing trustees will not be required to undertake the repairs till the Shebaits put the joint managing trustees in funds.
GA No.365 of 2010 is disposed of without any order as to costs. This order is without prejudice to the application (GA No.689 of 2011) made by Hasi Chatterjee, which is pending.
Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) bp.
A.R(C.R)