Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 11th May, 2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 11th Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) in Title Appeal No. 110 of 2014 affirming the judgement and decree dated 31st March, 2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 189 of 1984 at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant.
(2.) Let us now consider as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Here is the case where we find that a suit for partition was filed by the plaintiff/appellant against his mother and his elder brother, claiming 1/3rd share in the suit property. It was alleged that Atul Krishna Neogi was the original owner of the suit property. He died intestate on 27th December, 1954 leaving behind him the plaintiff viz., Nirmal Kumar Neogi (younger son), the original defendants viz., Sukumar Neogi (elder son), Niva Rani Neogi (wife) and six daughters. Since the said Atul Krishna Neogi died before Hindu Succession Act came into effect, the daughters could not inherit any share in the suit property left by Atul Krishna Neogi. The interest of Atul Krishna Neogi in the suit property, thus, devolved upon his widow and two sons in equal share. Thus, each of them inherited 1/3rd share in the suit property. The plaintiff/appellant, thus, claimed 1/3rd share in the suit property.
(3.) During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff/appellant came to know that his mother and his elder brother executed a deed of trust on 3rd May, 1985 for settling their 2/3rd interest in the suit property in favour of the beneficiaries under the said trust. When this fact regarding execution of the said deed of trust by the original defendants came to the knowledge of the plaintiff, the plaintiff amended his plaint challenging the legality, validity and due execution of the said deed of trust. Both the settlors died during the pendency of the suit. The legal representatives of those settlors were substituted in the place of the settlors.;