SMT. DOLLY MITRA Vs. TAPAN MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court : The plaintiffs are represented. The defendant, however, is not represented. Although a direction for filing affidavit was given but no affidavit-in- opposition has been filed by the defendant.

(2.) In this application the plaintiffs have prayed for a preliminary decree for partition in respect of the schedule properties and appointment of a Commissioner of Partition to divide the properties by metes and bounds in accordance with the admitted shares. In the written statement filed by the defendant which is annexed to the petition it appears that the defendant has contended that there is no dispute with regard to qualification of the shares of the parties as stated in the plaint. The defendant, however, contended that for the purpose of comprehensive partition, such shareholding is to be considered in respect of not only the property described in the plaint but in respect of the partnership business, inter alia, the assets and properties which has so long been enjoyed exclusively by the plaintiffs ever since the death of the father of the defendant. It is clear from the said written statement that the defendant has admitted the shares of the parties at least in respect of the properties forming Schedule 'A' and 'B' of the plaint.

(3.) Under such circumstances, a preliminary decree is passed declaring respective shares of the parties as mentioned in paragraph 35 of the petition. In the event, the parties fail to partition the properties by metes and bounds within sixty days from the date of communication of this order to the defendant either of the parties may apply for appointment of a Commissioner of Partition.