Calcutta High Court
Bijoy Chand Mullick vs Smt. Chameli Dutt & Ors on 15 September, 2016
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
OD-134
GA No.1457 of 2016
CS No.363 of 2014
GA No.2207 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
BIJOY CHAND MULLICK
-Versus-
SMT. CHAMELI DUTT & ORS.
Appearance:
Mr. Mainak Bose, Adv.
...for the plaintiff.
Mr. Abdul Hadi, Adv.
...for the defendant No.1.
Mr. Tapas Kumar Dey, Adv.
...for the defendant Nos.2-8.
Mr. Sutirtha Das, Adv.
...for the defendant Nos.9 & 11.
Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Sakabda Roy, Adv.
...for the defendant No.10.
Mr. Abhishek Banerjee, Adv.
...for the defendant No.12.
Mr. Pinaki Ghosh, Adv.
...the Receiver.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
Date : September 15, 2016.
The Court : All the thirteen parties are represented
through Advocate. The preliminary decrees herein are passed by
consent of the parties.
The matter pertains to the estate of Piyari Mohan
Mullick. His Will has been probated. Under such Will, the
immovable property at 279B, Rabindra Sarani was bequeathed to the
2
second wife (the first wife having predeceased the testator), four
sons of the testator through his first wife and the son through
his second wife in equal share. In other words, the second wife
of the testator and the five legatee sons of the testator each
became entitled to 1/6th share of the immovable property at 279B
Rabindra Sarani.
The testator had completely disinherited son Golok Chand
Mullick through his first marriage.
Three of the four sons of the testator through his first
wife have died. The second wife and the son through the second
wife have also died. The plaintiff is the only living legatee son
of the testator. Some of the children of the other legatee sons
of the testator have also died. A comprehensive genealogical
table has been prepared by the plaintiff and circulated to all the
parties.
In respect of the family dwelling house at 279B Rabindra
Sarani, the following preliminary decree is passed declaring the
shares of the parties:
1. Plaintiff - Bijoy Chand Mullick 5/24
2. 1st Defendant - Chameli Dutta 1/12
3. 2nd Defendant - Chaitali Mullick 1/36
4. 3rd Defendant - Debapriya Mullick 1/36
5. 4th Defendant - Debjit Mullick 1/36
6. 5th Defendant - Golok Chand Mullick 1/24
7. 6th Defendant - Manju Mullick 5/72
3
8. 7th Defendant - Arindam Mullick
alias Goutam Mullick 5/72
9. 8th Defendant - Mahua Mullick 5/72
10. 9th Defendant - Subhra Mullick 1/9
11. 10th Defendant - Siddhartha Mullick 1/9
12. 11th Defendant - Sarbani Bose 1/9
13. 12th Defendant - Mrigen Dhar 1/24
In respect of the rest of the estate of Piyari Mohan Mullick, the Will provided for each of the sons other than Golok Chand to inherit the same in equal share. Since the testator had five sons other than Golok Chand, each of the five branches became entitled to 1/5th of the residuary estate.
In respect of the residuary estate of testator Piyari Mohan Mullick, other than the immovable property at 279B Rabindra Sarani, there will be a preliminary decree as following declaring the shares of the parties :
1. Plaintiff - Bijoy Chand Mullick 1/4
2. 1st Defendant - Chameli Dutta 1/10
3. 2nd Defendant - Chaitali Mullick 1/30
4. 3rd Defendant - Debapriya Mullick 1/30
5. 4th Defendant - Debjit Mullick 1/30
6. 5th Defendant - Golok Chand Mullick 1/20
7. 6th Defendant - Manju Mullick 1/12
8. 7th Defendant - Arindam Mullick alias Goutam Mullick 1/12 4
9. 8th Defendant - Mahua Mullick 1/12
10. 9th Defendant - Subhra Mullick 1/15
11. 10th Defendant - Siddhartha Mullick 1/15
12. 11th Defendant - Sarbani Bose 1/15
13. 12th Defendant - Mrigen Dhar 1/20 Disinherited son Golok Chand has gained a foothold in his father's estate upon the intestate death of some of the original legatees or their heirs.
As to the movable properties of the testator Piyari Mohan Mullick, there is some dispute between the parties. The plaintiff claims that the tenth defendant is in possession of most of the valuable movables including the ornaments and jewelleries. The tenth defendant denies such position.
According to the tenth defendant, an affidavit of assets was filed in connection with the petition for grant of probate. The tenth defendant exhorts that the Court and all the parties should be guided only by the contents of the affidavit of assets that was accepted at the time of grant of probate.
Since the preliminary decrees in respect of the immovable property and the residuary estate of the testator have been passed, it will be open to the parties to now agree to identify and particularise all movable assets of the testator so that the same may be distributed to the parties in accordance with their share. For such purpose, the plaintiff will convene a meeting of all the parties to be held at the family dewelling 5 house within four weeks from date and file a report. Since the parties can agree among themselves as to the extent of the residuary estate of the testator and the manner of distribution thereof, it will be open to the parties to execute appropriate documents evidencing such agreement so that the complication in appointing a partition commissioner to distribute the movables is avoided.
The parties are unanimous that the receiver appointed in the matter should be discharged. However, the receiver claims that his remuneration remains unpaid. It will be open to the parties to renew the prayer for discharge of the receiver, subject to the remuneration due to the receiver being paid to the receiver.
Let the petitions now appear on November 29, 2016. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) A/s.