(1.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel on both the side the substantial question of law framed by this Court on 25.06.2013 is recasted as follows: 'Whether the lower Appellate Court is justified in granting a larger share to the plaintiffs than what was allotted by the Trial Court without there being any cross objection or regular appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment of the Trial Court and thus, the judgment of the First Appellate Court has become perverse and illegal?'
(2.) PRESENT appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C by the defendants No.1 to 7 and 10 of an original suit bearing O.S. No.54/1997. The 1st respondent is the sole plaintiff in the said suit. Respondent No.2 is the defendant No.8 and respondent No.3 is the defendant No.9 in the said suit. During the pendency of the said suit, defendant No.9 - the mother of appellants died and appellants -respondent have been treated as her legal heirs. Suit filed for the relief of partition and separate possession by the plaintiff Gourawwa the sister of defendants No.1 to 7 and daughter of defendant No.10 claiming 1/45th share came to be decreed in part granting 1/11th share in respect of tenanted lands bearing Sy.No.285/3, 286/3, 295/3 and 296/3 measuring in all 25 acres 5 guntas. She is also entitled for 1/11th share in respect of house property bearing VPC No.1566 and 1567 carved out in Sy.No.296/3. In respect of other properties suit has been dismissed vide judgment dated 25.08.2006.
(3.) AS against the said judgement and decree, defendants No.1 to 7 and defendant No.10 chose to file a Regular Appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C. challenging the same on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo. After contest, the said appeal has been allowed and judgement and decree dated 25.08.2003 passed in O.S. No.177/2003 is set aside. It is held that plaintiff is entitled for 12/121th in all the suit schedule property. It is these judgments and decrees, which are called in question before this Court. The facts leading to the filing of the suit are as follows: