(1.) The facts of the case have been set out correctly and in detail in the judgment dated 30th July, 1999 of the learned single Judge. We do not intend to burden this judgment with a repetition of those facts. Suffice it to say that the judgment was in a partition suit between three groups of heirs and that the question to be determined is the shares of the parties in premises No.26, Badur Bagan Lane, Calcutta (referred to as the premises).
(2.) The appellants represent one group; the respondent Nos.1 to 4 represent the second group and the respondent No.5 represents the third group, each group being the heirs of three brothers namely, Upendra, Dhirendra and Bhupendra respectively. The father of Upendra, Dhirendra and Bhupendra, one Kunja Behari owned 3/4th share in the premises. The other 1/4th share was owned by Kunja Behari's nephew, Harendra Nath.
(3.) The respondents Nos.1 to 4 claim 1/4th share in the premises by virtue of a sale of Harendra Nath's interest to their father, Dhirendra. The respondent No.5 claims 1/20th share in the premises as one of the revisionary heirs of Dhirendra. The appellants, the heirs of Upendra, contend that they are entitled to the whole interest in the premises. Accordingly to the appellants neither the respondents 1 to 4 nor the respondent No.5 have any right to the premises.