- (1.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 04-01-2007 and decree dated 15-01-2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, First Court, Purulia in Title Appeal No.7 of 2005 affirming the judgment dated 30-11-2004 and decree dated 08-12-2004 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raghunathpur in Title Suit No.63 of 2001, the appellants herein prefer this second appeal.
(2.) In both the Courts below, the plaintiffs have lost in the matter. It appears that a suit for partition was instituted before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raghunathpur in Title Suit No.63 of 2001. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property originally belonged to three brothers, Daman Mahato, Charan Mahato and Pahalan Mahato. Pahalan died unmarried and it is the case of the plaintiffs that his interest devolved on the surviving two brothers who became the owners to the extent of half share each. Daman died leaving behind his son Hari and according to the plaintiffs, Hari sold his half share to the plaintiff no.1, Gobinda Mahato as well as to his mother-in-law, Jhuri Mahatani and it is further stated that they are in possession jointly of the suit property. It further appears that Charan died leaving behind his four daughters - Khukim Rubu, Mousumi and Bimala and the widow Jhuri. The plaintiffs intend to claim shares in the property and asked for partition. It is the further case that the plaintiff no.1 got 41/2 decimals by purchase and 33/8 shares by inheritance together with other plaintiffs totaling 77/8 decimals in the suit property. Plaintiffs asked for partition which was refused by the defendants. Hence this suit.
(3.) The defendants filed written statement denying such facts. On the contrary, it has been specifically stated that Jhuri took settlement of the suit property from the deity Sri Sri Satya Narayan Jew Thakurani through its Shebait, Monulal Moruari and possessed the same and residing at the said premises and letting out the house standing at the said premises. It is further stated that Daman has no right, title and interest in the suit property. Following issues were framed by the trial Court: " 1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form and on law? 2. Have the plaintiff any cause of action to institute this suit? 3. Have the plaintiffs, any right, title, interest and possession over the suit lands? 4. Whether there was any previous partition over the suit land? 5. Are the plaintiffs entitled to get any decree as prayed for? 6. To what other reliefs, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled? ";