- (1.) Re: C. A. N. 10000 of 2009 This is an appeal against a preliminary decree passed in a partition suit. The learned trial judge decreed the partition suit and declared that the parties have 50% (fifty per cent.) shares each.
(2.) Having regard to the nature of the litigation and as the appellants were mislead by a clerk in obtaining certified copies of the judgement and decree, we hold that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the memorandum of appeal in time. The delay is, therefore, condoned. The application for condonation of delay stands allowed. The office is directed to register the appeal, if the appeal is otherwise in form. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in this application. Re: F. A. T. No. 16 of 2009 On the prayer of Mr. Arindam Sen, learned advocate, appearing for the appellants and at the risk of the appellants, service of notice of the appeal on the respondent nos. 2 to 9 is dispensed with as they were proforma defendants in the suit and as they did not contest the case in the court below. The appeal is taken up for hearing in presence of the learned advocates appearing for the contesting parties after dispensation of all formalities.
(3.) Amarendra Kumar Chowdhury, the predecessor-in-interest of these appellants, and Manabendra Kumar Chowdhury, the plaintiff-respondent no. 1, jointly acquired the property-in- suit by a registered deed of sale dated July 19, 2005. They were admittedly in possession of the same. Amarendra Kumar Chowdhury died intestate and his heirs, the defendant nos. 1 to 7/appellants, became the owners to the extent of half share in respect of the property-in-suit by way of inheritance.;