Ultimate Devolution of Absolute Interest Supersedes Lapsed Life Interests in Partition Suit

The respondents (heirs of a daughter of Satya Kumar Chatterjee) filed a partition suit regarding premises No. 65, Hindusthan Park

The original owner, Harisadhan Chatterjee, left a Will (1955) granting a life interest to his wife, then limited life interests to his daughters and their sons (until age 35) for specific portions, and finally a residuary legacy to his son, Satya Kumar, and his heirs in absolute right

The appellant (another daughter of Satya Kumar) challenged the preliminary decree on two grounds: first, that the suit was bad for non-joinder of other legal heirs mentioned in the Will; and second, that the decree failed to account for maintenance expenses she incurred for the property

1. Whether the partition suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties based on the legacy created by the Will of Harisadhan Chatterjee

2. Whether the appellant was entitled to a decree for accounts regarding maintenance and upkeep expenses of the suit property

A life interest is extinguished upon the death of the holder or the fulfillment of a specific condition (e.g., reaching age 35), after which the property vests in the ultimate/residuary legatee

A party claiming reimbursement or accounts must provide a minimum "iota of evidence" or proof of expenditure to warrant the framing of an issue or a direction for accounts

The Court found that all prior bequests in the Will were life interests that had been extinguished. The appellant herself had previously admitted in letters of administration proceedings that the grandsons mentioned in the Will had reached the age of 35, and she admitted in evidence that all other life interest holders were deceased

Consequently, the property vested absolutely in the heirs of Satya Kumar (the parties to the suit), making the joinder of other relatives unnecessary

Regarding the claim for expenses, the Court noted that although the appellant pleaded maintenance costs in her written statement, her sole witness failed to produce any evidence or documents to prove such spending. In the absence of proof, the Trial Court was not obligated to direct an accounting of expenses

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the preliminary decree dated November 28, 2025. The Trial Court was directed to dispose of the final decree proceedings expeditiously, preferably by September 30, 2026