CHINU RANI GHOSH Vs. SUBHASH GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 28/4/2022 passed in Regular First Appeal No.5/2021 by the High Court of Judicature at Tripura by which the First Appeal arising out of a preliminary judgment and preliminary decree dtd. 20/2/2021 and 23/2/2021 respectively, in TS(Partition) 13 of 2018 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge(Senior Division), Udaipur, Gomati District, Tripura holding that the execution of the Will (Ext.C) had not been proved and thus the plaintiffs and defendants were equally entitled to 1/6th share of the subject matter of Schedules B(i) and B(ii) land has been reversed by the High Court and the said Regular First Appeal has been allowed, plaintiff No.3/appellant in the said suit has preferred this appeal.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Kariram Ghosh had two sons namely, Tarani Ghosh and Nabin Chandra Ghosh. Tarini Ghosh, Nabin Chandra Ghosh and Kanaki Bala Ghosh (wife of Nabin Chandra Ghosh) were allotted certain land by the State Government which was divided by way of a compromise as Schedule A, Schedule B (i), and Schedule B(ii) respectively. One of the brothers, Nabin Chandra Ghose, who was the sole owner of the schedule B(i) property passed away on 20/1/1982 leaving behind his widow-Kanaki Bala Ghosh as the sole legal heir. The other brotherTarani Ghosh was the sole owner of schedule A property and he passed away on 15/1/1991 leaving behind his widow-Bindu Ghosh, four daughters and two sons as legal heirs. Three out of the four daughters are the plaintiffs including the appellant herein whereas the other daughter and two sons are the defendants who are the respondents herein. After the death of Tarani Ghosh on 15/1/1991, he left behind the Schedule 'A' land, which his four daughters and two sons inherited. Consequently, the land was recorded in their names. Kanaki Bala Ghosh passed away on 1/7/2001, issueless, leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants as her sole legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Thus, the plaintiffs and defendants became joint owners of the entire Schedule 'A', 'B(i)', and 'B(ii)' lands in equal shares, without any formal partition.