Administration Suit Court Empowered to Order Property Partition Based on Consensual Settlement Lots

The underlying suit for administration and accounts of the estate of Late Kalipada Barick was instituted in 1965 by his widow, Sailabala Dassi

Following her death, an Administrator-ad-litem was appointed to represent her interest

Amidst sixty years of litigation, the heirs of the three sons (Sambhunath, Sarajendranath, and Sachindranath) held various meetings, specifically on September 5, 2022, where they consensually divided 38 properties into three distinct "LOTS" (A, B, and C)

The applicant (Defendant 2h) sought a preliminary decree based on these admitted lots and the appointment of a commission to partition the residential property at 194 Vivekananda Road

Certain defendants (notably Defendant 1e, Ranjana Barick) opposed the application, arguing the suit was for declaration rather than partition, challenging the valuation done in 1997-98, and claiming the settlement was never finalized

The Court primarily applied Order XX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which empowers the Court in an administration suit to pass a preliminary decree for accounts and inquiries and give such other directions as it thinks fit

The Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to prevent a duplication of proceedings and a "multiplicity of litigation," especially in a 60-year-old suit

It relied on Shiva Prasad Singh v. Prayag Kumari Debee for the principle that an administration suit involves the collection, realization, and distribution of assets

It further adopted the reasoning from K.K. Thankappan v. K.S. Jayan, holding that the power to give directions in an administration suit under Rule 13 is broad enough to include the disposal and management of the estate

The Court reasoned that while the suit was for administration, the ultimate goal of such an action is the final distribution of the remaining estate among the heirs/residuary legatees

Given the "protracted pendency" of 60 years and the death of original parties, the Court held that relegating parties to a separate partition suit would cause "immense hardship"

Analyzing the minutes of meetings dated 23.02.2004, 19.12.2020, and 05.09.2022, the Court found that the parties had unequivocally agreed to the LOT system

The Court rejected the objection regarding valuation, noting that the properties were valued twice under High Court orders in 1997-98 and that the parties had already "acted upon" the settlement—specifically, the objecting group (LOT A) had already sold the Darjeeling property and appropriated the proceeds

Consequently, the Court found the agreement was not conditional and the objecting parties were estopped from resiling after accepting the benefits of the settlement

The Court allowed G.A. 23 of 2025, passing a preliminary decree in terms of the admitted LOTS A, B, and C as described in Annexure ‘A’

It appointed Mr. Amitava Pal and Ms. Manimalla De as Joint Commissioners to partition the residential property at 194 Vivekananda Road by metes and bounds in accordance with the agreed sketch plan

The Commissioners were directed to file the final terms of settlement/report by June 15, 2026, for the passing of a final decree