- (1.) This second appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 23rd December, 1994 passed by learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Hooghly in
(2.) Title Appeal No. 297 of 1987 affirming the judgment and decree dated 29th July, 1987 passed by learned Assistant District Judge, Second Court, Hooghly, in Title Suit No. 9 of 1981. Learned Courts below noted the facts of the parties in details and so I record just the gist of the case of the respective parties.
(3.) The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as plaintiffs filed said suit for partition alleging that Charu Chandra Sarkar was the owner of 'B' schedule property (suit property) and also purchased 'A' schedule property on 13th of March, 1957. Charu Charan Sarkar died intestate on 20th March, 1957 leaving behind his only son Sailendranath (predecessor-in-interest of defendant Nos. 1 and 2) and the plaintiffs as four daughters each having 1/5th share in the suit property. The suit property was never partitioned among the co-sharers and the plaintiffs used to get amounts and usufracts from the suit property. Sailendra died in 1963 but during his life time he has sold some of the suit properties to the defendant Nos. 3 to 5 (defendant No. 3 Padmarani Karmakar is the sole appellant and defendant Nos. 4 and 5 are respondent Nos. 7 and 8). Sailendra had no authority to sell more than his share (1/5th share) and the plaintiffs were not bound by any such sale in excess of Sailendra's share. As plaintiffs were finding inconvenience in the joint possession and defendant No. 1 refused to effect partition on 21st January, 1981, the plaintiffs were compelled to file said suit for partition.;