GOURANGA CHANDRA ROY Vs. GOBINDA BALLAB ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2001 and 11.07.2001 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, senior Division, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in Title (P) Suit No. 112 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the learned Civil Judge allowed the suit for partition filed by Monoranjan Roy, the predecessor in interest of the respondent Nos. l(i) to (iv) entitling him to get l/7th share of the 'C ' Schedule land and l/8th share of the rest properties as described in the Schedules A, B, D and E.

(2.) HEARD Mr. B. Das, learned senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. l (ii) to (iv). Also heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattachaijee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.l(i). None appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiff, predecessor in interest of respondent Nos.l(i) to (iv), before the learned Civil Judge was that the suit land measuring 2 Kanis 11 gandas 1 kara 2 krantas 12 dhurs is inherited by him and his brothers and sisters and relative defendants. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are also the Sons of said late Srish Chandra Roy and were defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 5 in the suit. The suit land was originally belonged to late Srish Chandra Roy, the father of the plaintiff, some of the defendant Nos. 1 to 6, father -in -law of defendant No.7 and grandfather of defendant Nos. 8 and 9. The original owner, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff and defendants died on 11.12.1994 leaving the properties, i.e. suit land. Another successor, the mother of the plaintiff, also died and the properties were inherited by the plaintiff as well as the defendants. Admittedly, the father of the plaintiff gifted land measuring 0.500 acres appertaining to Khatian No. 2748 to the plaintiff and his six brothers, i.e. defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and the predecessor of the defendant Nos. 7, 8 and 9, late Satya Ranjan Roy, by a registered deed of gift. As such the predecessor in interest of the respondent Nos.l(i) to (iv), i.e. plaintiff, was the owner of l/7th of 'C ' Schedule land and each of the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 was the owner of l/7th share and the defendant Nos. 7, 8 and 9 are jointly entitled to get l/7th share of the suit property in the 'C ' Schedule land and the defendant No.6 has no share in the 'C ' Schedule land. The plaintiff and the defendants are in joint possession in the suit land since the death of the parents and defendant No.6, sister of the plaintiff, after marriage is living separately. The plaintiff being one of the shareholders of the property of his father, late Srish Ch. Roy, gave a proposal to the defendants for partition of the suit land and accordingly, a family meeting was held, but the defendant Nos. 2 and 4, who are the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the present appeal, refused to partition of the land. It is also stated by the plaintiff in his plaint that the valuable portion of the property is occupied by the defendant Nos. 2 and 4. Father of the plaintiff carrying business on the 'Sriguru Stores ' and on his death right, title and interest of the father of the plaintiff devolved upon the plaintiff and the defendants by inheritance and the defendant Nos. 2 and 4 are looking after the business. The cause of action arose on 17.10.1998 when the plain - tiff was refused by the defendant Nos. 2 and 4 for partition of his share by way of family settlement. Thus, the plaintiff filed the. suit for aforesaid partition of 'C ' Schedule land for getting l/7th share and l/8th share of the land as described in the Schedules A, B, D and E.