Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13th January, 2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Malda, in Title Appeal No. 55 of 2014 affirming the judgement and decree dated 3rd December, 2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chanchal, Malda, in Title Suit No. 34 of 1999 (renumbered as Partition Suit No. 34 of 1999) at the instance of the plaintiffs/appellants.
(2.) Let us now consider as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.
(3.) Admittedly, Girish Pramanik was the owner of the suit property. On his death, the suit property was inherited by his daughter, Taramani Pramanik. It is also an admitted fact that the plaintiffs purchased the suit property from de facto guardian of Taramani, at a point of time when Taramani was minor. The fatherin-law of Taramani acting as a de facto guardian sold the suit property to the predecessor of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, thus, claimed title over the suit property to the extent of the purchase made by their predecessor in the suit property. The plaintiffs also claimed that they have acquired title over the suit property by possessing the suit property to the knowledge of Taramani and the rest of the world for a period of more than twelve years. Since the defendants were disturbing the plaintiffs' possession in the suit property, they have filed the instant suit for partition.;