A.M. Sinha, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the learned Judge, Sixth Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in a suit for partition being Title Suit No. 70 of 1973. The facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows: Subject -matter of the partition suit is a joint family residence at 23/1 Hurro Dhole Lane, P.S. Jorabagan, Calcutta. That house properly belonged to one Kali Charan Dutta who died instated in June 1940. He left the Defendant No. 1 and two other daughters of his first wife who predeceased, him and also two minor daughters and two minor sons and his second wife Lakshmibala as heirs. Sasthi Charan, the Plaintiff No. 1 who is the eldest son by the second wife of Kali Charan brought the instant suit for partition of the joint family residential house and other moveable properties alleging that their older step -brother, the Defendant No. 1. Tarak acted as karta and manager of the joint family after the death of the father and had the custody of moveables and jewelleries, monies, shares and securities. As the Plaintiff and other co -sharers felt inconvenience in the joint possession of the suit properly demanded partition from the Defendant No. 1. As the Defendant No. 1 did not comply with the demand, the instant suit was brought. The Defendant No. 1 entered appearance and filed a written statement. The Defendant No. 2, the full brother of the Plaintiff, and the step -brother of the Defendant No. 1 also filed a separate written statement. The learned Judge on consideration of the materials on record and the evidence adduced by the parties found that the Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of commission agency business for which a demand for account was made in the plaint. He also found that the Defendant No. 1 amicably divided moveables, ornaments amongst the co -sharers. Accordingly, he did not allow the claim of the Plaintiff for accounts in respect of the alleged joint family business and the moveables. He, however, decreed the suit in preliminary form on contest against the Defendant No. 1 and ex parte against other Defendants and declared the share of the Plaintiff to be /5/ as. in the joint family dwelling house contained in A schedule of the plaint. He directed the Defendant No. 1 to render partition of the suit property amicably by metes and bounds and ordered that in default a Pleader Commissioner would be appointed for partitioning the suit property.
(2.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge the Defendant No. 1 has preferred this appeal.
(3.) The only grievance which the Defendant No. 1 has made out in the grounds of appeal that he is entitled to reimbursement on account of payment of municipal taxes, repair and maintenance in respect of the suit house out of his own income from the other co -sharers to the extent of the share.;