- (1.) These two appeals arise out of a suit for partition. In the two courts below there were disputes as to facts and also on questions of law. In this 'Court all the parties have accepted the findings of facts, concurrently made by two courts below, and the dispute is now confined to their respective legal rights flowing from those undisputed facts and certain finding's on questions of fact on which the courts below' have differed.
(2.) The facts found by the two courts below which are no longer in dispute may briefly be stated as follows: The disputed cadastral survey dags Nos. 1176 (.56 decimals); 1009/1274 (2.41 acres) and 1009/1275 (.15 decimals) along with' other properties originally belonged to one Barada Prasad Mitra, Barada died leaving two sons, Suren and Upen, as his heirs, Suren died in or about 1929 leaving his two sons, Kuran and Balai, as his heirs. Kuran is Plaintiff No. 1 of this suit and Bala: is pro forma Defendant No. 3. Kuran has got 8 annas share in the suit properties, 4 annas by inheritance from his father Suren and Anr. 4 annas by purchase from his brother Balai, who go the same as Suren's other heir. Suren also left a daughter Padmarani who obtained by purchase the 4 annas share of the suit properties, which had devolved on her vendor Kanai as ont of the heirs of his father "Open. Padmarani is Plaintiff No. 2 of the present suit and Kanai is pro forma Defendant No. 2. In or about 1336 B.S., corresponding to the English year 1929 Upen leased out the northern portion of cadastral survey plot Nos. 1009/1274 and 1009/1275 to the extent of three-fourths of the said plots to Defendant No. 2, Nepal Chandra Ghosh. Upen died in or about 1939 leaving his two sons, Netai and Kanai, as his heirs who acquired, by such inheritance from their father 8 annas share of the suit properties. As already stated, Kana transferred his entire interest in the suit properties, namely, his, four annas share, in favour of Plaintiff No. 2, Padmarani. This transfer took place on October 21, 1946. In January, 1946, Netaji who is pro forma Defendant No. 1 before me, had already sold his one-fourth share in the two cadastral survey plots Nos. 1009 /127 and 1009/1275 to Defendant No. 1, Manmatha Nath Mukherjee.
(3.) On the above facts the admitted position is that the Plaintiff No. 1 has an 8-anna share in the suit properties, the remaining 8 annas share belong to Plaintiff No. 2 and Defendant No. 1 and pro forma Defendant No. 1. As amongst these latter three persons, Plaintiff No. 2 has 4 annas share in all the three disputed dags and pro forma Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 1 have the other 4 annas share in cadastral survey dags Nos. 1176 and 1009/l274 and 1009/1275, respectively. The Defendant No. has his lease from Upen in respect of the northern portion imprising three-fourths of these last two dags and the effect of his lease and of the possession and rights of Defendant No. 2 hereunder on the title of pro forma Defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 1 and the Plaintiffs is the chief point for consideration in these two appeals.;