Strong Prima Facie Case of Fraud and Misrepresentation Made Out: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction in Partition Suit Over Mumbai Property

“The Partition Deed and Declaration are vitiated by fraud; the plaintiff, a major coparcener, was wrongly projected as a minor and excluded from the settlement.” - In a detailed and sharply reasoned judgment Calcutta High Court upheld the temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court in a high-stakes family dispute involving ancestral property, including a valuable Mumbai property. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar found that the challenge to the 2008 Partition Deed and 2009 Declaration raised a strong prima facie case of fraud, especially as the plaintiff, a major at the time, was excluded from the family settlement by falsely being projected as a minor.

The Court dismissed the appeal against the injunction, noting that “the very activities of denial of title of the plaintiff… furnish urgency and apprehension of irreparable injury.”

“Partition deed executed in 2008 excluded a major coparcener by falsely portraying him as a minor”: Court finds deliberate fraud

The suit was filed by Rohan Ganeriwala, a coparcener in the Biswanath Ganeriwala Hindu Undivided Family (BHUF), seeking declaration that a Deed of Partition (dated 02.12.2008) and a Deed of Declaration (01.06.2009) were void or voidable and should be cancelled. The plaintiff alleged that although he had attained majority in 2006, the deeds were executed in 2008 and 2009 without his knowledge or consent, with his father falsely representing him as a minor.

The Court noted with concern:

“The Partition Deed… gave an impression that [the plaintiff] was a minor who was represented by his father… although he had already attained majority… Such statement was a gross misrepresentation of the actual facts.”

It held that this deliberate misrepresentation created a strong prima facie case of fraud and misrepresentation, justifying injunctive relief.

“BHUF was the rightful owner of the Mumbai property, and no title could be transferred in its absence”: Court dismantles appellant’s claim of ownership

One of the core disputes was over a valuable property in Juhu, Mumbai, which the appellant, Pradip Kumar Ganeriwala, claimed had been allotted to him by way of family settlement and later mutation.

However, the Court traced the property's history and observed that it had been purchased in court auction by Biswanath on behalf of BHUF, and ownership had conclusively vested in BHUF by virtue of a Sale Certificate, which is conclusive proof of title.

“By virtue of the Sale Certificate… BHUF became the absolute and exclusive owner of the Mumbai property.”

The Court found that the subsequent Deed of Declaration and Indenture favoring the appellant were legally ineffective, stating:

“Sanchaita Investment, the transferor, had already been divested of title in the property… the Deed of Indenture could not operate to convey or transfer any title.”

“Not all coparceners were parties to the partition”: Deeds held voidable at plaintiff’s instance

The Bench emphasized that any partition or settlement excluding a coparcener—especially one who was major at the time—is legally suspect:

“The plaintiff was not a party to any of the documents-in-question… His father could not have represented his estate… the plaintiff was a coparcener the moment Biswanath, the Karta of BHUF, met his demise.”

The Court held that the plaintiff's coparcenary interest was unlawfully diluted, and his exclusion from the deeds raised serious legal and equitable concerns.

Objections on jurisdiction, limitation, and suppression rejected

The appellant raised several procedural objections, including lack of territorial jurisdiction, bar of limitation, and suppression of material facts.

On jurisdiction, the Court held: “The principal relief sought in the suit does not pertain directly to immovable properties; rather… comes within the residuary provision of Section 20 of the CPC… the Trial Court had ample jurisdiction.”

On limitation, the Court clarified that even if knowledge was imputed from July 2023 (instead of December), the 2024 suit was still within the limitation period:

“Mere knowledge of the existence of such deed… might not necessarily be the first date of actual knowledge of the contents.”

And on suppression: “We do not find any instance of suppression of any material fact… The father’s signature does not bind the plaintiff, who was a major and not a minor as falsely claimed.”

Upholding the trial court’s order, the Division Bench concluded:

“A strong prima facie case of injunction has been made out by the plaintiff… the other legal parameters of grant of injunction have also been fully satisfied.”

The Court also cautioned that its observations were tentative and made only for the purpose of adjudicating the interlocutory appeal, and that the Trial Court would decide the suit on merits independently.

Date of Decision: 01 May 2025