(1.) AS common question of law and facts arise in both these second appeals and they arise out of common judgement and order, both these second appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgement and order.
(2.) SECOND Appeal No.104 of 1991 has been preferred by the appellant herein original respondent No.1 to quash and set aside the impugned common judgement and order dated 28/07/1988 passed by learned Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.185 of 1884, by which, learned Appellate Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the original defendant Nos.1 to 5, 7 and 8 and has quashed and set aside the judgement and decree passed by learned Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.620 of 1982, by which, learned Trial Court appointed Court Commissioner to partition the disputed property by meets and bounds by holding that original plaintiff is having 1/10 share along with defendant Nos.6, 8, 9 to 11 in the suit property (it appears that it should be 1/14).
(3.) FACTS leading to the present second appeals, in nutshell, are as under: