SOUMEN SEN, J. - (1.) Three co-sharers having miniscule interest in the property in order to throw a spanner in the wheel has opposed the appellation filed by the acknowledged and established largest co-sharer of the joint family properties.
(2.) This is the third round of litigation. In the earlier two litigations as the orders would reveal some of the co- sharers wanted to defeat the right of the largest co-sharer of the property, namely, the defendant no.1 in getting his due share in the property. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd July, 2005 since affirmed by the Division Bench on 15th August, 2006 clearly recognized the shares of the applicant/defendant no.1 in the joint family properties. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd July, 2005 would show that similar allegations were made as of the present applicants by Jyotsna, the plaintiff no.6, but without any success. The Hon'ble Division Bench by the order dated 14th August, 2006 directed the Commissioner of Partition to adjust equities, so that each party gets its due share in the joint family properties. However, save and except the present applicant, none of the co-sharers have shown any interest which fact is even recognized by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the order dated 18th February, 2016. It was on the lamentation of Sarmilee Dutt that the Division Bench was persuaded to hold that a chance may be given to her to challenge the valuation of the properties vis-a-vis the percentage to which each of the parties would be entitled and on that consideration the earlier order passed by this Court on 15th June, 2015 was set aside.
(3.) Lest this Court commits a mistake in appreciating and understanding the scope and purport of the order dated 18th February, 2016 the relevant portion of the order is set out:;