ARUP CHAKRABORTY Vs. TAPAS CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant (here-in-after referred to as "plaintiff") as well as Mr. S. Saha and Mr. S. Banik, learned counsels appearing for the defendant-respondents (here-in-after referred to as "defendants").

(2.) This is a first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2019, passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. Title Suit (Partition) 17 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the learned Court had decreed the suit to partition the land in respect of Schedule-D land of the plaint while declining the decree for partition over the land of Schedule-C.

(3.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in issue relevant to decide the dispute between the parties to the lis, may be set-forth hereunder: The plaintiff, Sri Arup Chakraborty, being the son of Lt. Apurba Chakraborty, one of the three sons of Lt. Indu Bhusan Chakraboty and Smt. Shantilata Chakraborty had instituted the present suit for partitioning the land of Smt. Shantilata Chakraborty mentioned in Schedule-C of the plaint along with other lands as mentioned in Schedule- D. Late Shantilata Chakraborty had 5(five) daughters and 3(three) sons. During her lifetime 2(two) of her sons, namely Lt. Apurba Chakraborty, the father of the plaintiff, and Dipulal Chakraborty had died.