Monoranjan Mallick, J. - (1.) These two appeals arising out of the same judgment and decree passed by the Ld. Addl. District Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly in T.A. No. 90/76 have been heard analogously for reasons of convenience.
(2.) The facts which has given rise to both the appeals may be briefly stated as follows:- One Smt. Nandarani Dassi as plaintiff has filed the T.S. No. 43 of 1970 for partition of the properties described in Item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint along with a prayer for accounts against the defendant Nos. 1 to 5. She has alleged in the plaint that the Ka schedule property being Item No. 1 situated in Mouza-Hamjampur formerly belonged to three brothers namely Motilal, Tinkari and Baneshwar each having l/3rd share therein. Motilal died leaving his son Adhar, who died leaving Kusumkamini and two daughters. Tinkari died after Motilal without no issue and his share devolved upon Baneshwar, the surviving brother. Baneshwar died leaving three sons Kudhiram, Nidhar and Bhusan Chandra. Defendant No. 7 is the heir of Khudiram. The defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are the heirs of Nidhar and defendant No. 6 is the heir of Bhusan. Kusumkamini by her own Stridhan money purchased 8 Annas in the property described in schedule Kha of the plaint by a Kobala in the year 1303 S.S. The said property is now within the Village - Musuria. Kusumkamini before her death executed a Deed of Gift in favour of the plaintiff Nandarani who is her daughters daughter. Nandarani all along entrusted the defendants to look after the property and to pay the rents and taxes on condition that they would deliver to her share and usufructs but as the defendants have failed and neglected to do so the plaintiffs brought the suit for partition claiming l/3rd share in Ka schedule property situated in Hamjampur and 8 Annas share in Kha schedule property at Musuria and for accounts.
(3.) The defendant Nos. 1 to 5 have alone-contested the suit by filing a joint written statement. As regards the Hamjampur property their case is that there was a previous partition and Kusumkamini was allotted some plots by some partition and let-out those plots to one Chakuduly and after her death, her daughters son Kalipada and Gosto Behari let out those plots in favour of the defendants. The rents of the properties fell in arrears and the landlord obtained a rent decree, put the decree in execution and one Satyapada purchased the said properly in rent execution sale who sold all those properties except plot No. 202 to the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and the plot No. 202 was sold by Satyapada to one Bhubaneswar Bhattacharjya. With regard to the Musuria property the case of the contesting defendants is that Kusumkamini by way of partition came in possession of four plots out of the Kha schedule property and three plots were kept in ejmali. Kusumkamini used to possess those properties through some Bhumij at an annual rental of Rs. 16/- ultimately when Bhumij surrendered those lands then Kusumkam ini let-out those lands to the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 at a rental of Rs. 15/- per annum.;