2004 (4) TMI 665 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Voids Property Sale: Petitioners' Rights Upheld, Fraud Allegations Proven, Succession Act Clarified.

Shyamal Kumar Banerjee and Ors. Versus Sunil Kumar Banerjee and Ors.

The HC set aside the sale of the petitioners' share in the Pratapaditya Road property, declaring the terms of settlement invalid concerning their ... - Issues Involved:1. Setting aside the order for sale of various properties.2. Validity of the probate of Sudhir Kumar Banerjee's will.3. Rights and interests of the petitioners in the properties.4. Allegations of fraud in obtaining the consent order.5. Applicability of Hindu Succession Act and Indian Succession Act.6. Status of the properties and their rightful ownership.7. Compliance with legal requirements under the Income Tax Act.8. Validity of the sale and rectification of deeds.Detailed Analysis:1. Setting Aside the Order for Sale of Various Properties:The petitioners sought to set aside the order for sale of properties passed in testamentary proceedings. They argued that the consent order was obtained through fraud and that their interests were not considered.2. Validity of the Probate of Sudhir Kumar Banerjee's Will:The probate of Sudhir Kumar Banerjee's will was challenged by the petitioners. Sudhir had bequeathed all his properties in his will, but the probate was revoked. The petitioners argued that Sudhir did not have exclusive rights to the properties mentioned in the will, as they were undivided shares inherited from their common ancestor, Surendra Nath Banerjee.3. Rights and Interests of the Petitioners in the Properties:The petitioners, being the sons of Salil Kumar Banerjee, claimed their share in the properties inherited from Surendra Nath Banerjee. They argued that they had a vested interest in the properties, including the Pratapaditya Road property, which was acquired by Sarala Bala, Surendra's wife. The court recognized their interest in the properties and declared that the sale of their share without their consent was invalid.4. Allegations of Fraud in Obtaining the Consent Order:The petitioners alleged that the consent order was obtained by practicing fraud, as relevant facts were suppressed. They argued that the order of sale was procured by suppressing an existing order of injunction and that their consent was not obtained. The court found merit in these allegations and held that the application challenging the consent order was maintainable.5. Applicability of Hindu Succession Act and Indian Succession Act:The court examined the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the Indian Succession Act, 1925. It was argued that the petitioners, being Christians, were disqualified from inheriting the properties under Section 26 of the Hindu Succession Act. However, the court held that Section 26 did not apply to properties inherited by their father before their conversion to Christianity. The court also noted that the petitioners could maintain the application as heirs of Salil Kumar Banerjee.6. Status of the Properties and Their Rightful Ownership:The court examined the ownership of the properties mentioned in the consent order. It was found that the Pratapaditya Road property belonged to Sarala Bala and was inherited by her sons, including Salil Kumar Banerjee. The court also found that the other properties, including the Bangur Avenue property and the Ultadanga Road property, were part of the estate of Surendra Nath Banerjee and that the petitioners had a share in them.7. Compliance with Legal Requirements under the Income Tax Act:The court addressed the issue of compliance with legal requirements under the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was argued that obtaining no objection certificates under Sections 230(A) and 269(UD) of the Act was dispensed with in the terms of settlement. The court held that in the case of a court sale, the requirement of such certificates was not necessary, as the court had accepted the price of the property as the real market price.8. Validity of the Sale and Rectification of Deeds:The court held that the sale of the Pratapaditya Road property to Dr. Sharaf was valid only to the extent of the shares of the signatories to the terms of settlement. The share of Salil Kumar Banerjee, inherited by the petitioners, was not sold. The court directed the rectification of the deed to reflect this and allowed the petitioners to maintain their interest in the property. The court also directed the disclosure of movable properties received by Sunil Kumar Banerjee in terms of the settlement.Conclusion:The court set aside the sale of the petitioners' share in the Pratapaditya Road property and declared the terms of settlement invalid to the extent of their interest in other properties. The court directed the rectification of deeds and compliance with legal requirements. The application challenging the consent order was found to be maintainable, and the allegations of fraud were taken seriously.