- (1.) THIS first appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for partition and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27th April, 1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Second Court, Contai, District-Midnapore in title Suit No. 143 of 1994 thereby dismissing the said suit.
(2.) BEING dissatisfied, the plaintiff has come up with the present appeal.
(3.) THE appellant before us, as plaintiff, filed in the Second Court, Assistant district Judge, Contai, District Midnapore, a suit being Title Suit No. 143 of 1994 thereby praying for partition of his one-sixth share in respect of the suit property and this case may be summed up thus: a) The suit property belonged to Upendra Nath Shee and Kshirode Chandra shee having 8 annas share each, and while in such enjoyment and possession, Kshirode died and after his death, his wife Apurba Sundari acquired his 8 annas share and she was in enjoyment and possession of the same jointly with Upendra. b) While in such enjoyment and possession, Upendra died and after his death, his three sons namely Pradyot, Sisir and Mihir acquired the property left by Upendra each having inherited one-third share of the share of Upendra, and thus, one-sixth share of the entire property. c) On the death of Apurba Sundari, the property left by her was acquired by the two sons of her deceased daughter, Radha Raman and Radha Ranjan, and they were in possession of the same jointly with Pradyot and his two brothers. Although there was no partition by metes and bounds between the three sons of Upendra and two grandsons of Kshirode, in the settlement record, their names were recorded in separate Khatians in respect of the aforesaid property. The said property were not recorded correctly in fractions but those were recorded in round figure; thus, pradyot and his other two brothers were in possession of one-sixth share each and Radha Raman and Radha Ranjan were in possession of onefourth share each. d) After the death of Pradyot, the property left by him was acquired by his wife and two sons and daughter as his heirs and they were in enjoyment and possession with other co-sharers. Subsequently, the heirs of the said Pradyot partitioned their property by registered deed executed on 27th June, 1986 and by the said deed, the share of Pradyot was acquired by the plaintiff alone, and the plaintiff was in enjoyment and possession of the same along with other co-sharers jointly. e) Although there is a note of possession by permission in respect of suit dag No. 511/828 in the name of Haripada Bera, the father of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4, there was no such permission given to him. There is also a note of the status of bargadar in the name of said Haripada Bera in respect of the dag no. 511, after his death, his heirs were not bargadars in view of Section 15 (A) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Besides, the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 purchased the property of the said Dag no. 511 and they were in possession along with other co-sharers. f) The defendants in collusion with each other were trying to harass the plaintiff. Hence the suit. ;