KALIMOYEE GHOSH Vs. NARENDRA NATH GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Shri N. Bhattacharyya, learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Howrah reversing the decision of Sri S.N. Burman, learned Munsif, Third Court, Howrah in Partition Suit No. 208 of 1972.

(2.) Plaintiffs alleged that their request for an amicable partition was turned down by the defendants and as such they were obliged to commence the suit on the following aver-meats:

(3.) The suit property appertaining to a Jama of Rs. 15-12-9 originally belonged to two brothers Nafar Chandra Ghosh and Berharam Ghosh in equal shares. Becharam died leaving his widow Atarmoni as the sole heir. Nafar died leaving his sons Fakir Chandra, Chandi Charan and Nakur Chandra. After the death of Atarmoni. the half share of Becharam devolved on his three nephews as stated before. Thus they began to possess the entire properry jointly. Chandi Charan died without any issues. His share, therefore, devolved on his two brothers Fakir Chandra and Nakur Chandra in equal shares and they began to possess jointly. Then Fakir Chandra died leaving his three sons, viz., Khargeswar, Nilmoni and Hiralal, defendant No, 2 Khargeswar died leaving his widow, defendant No. 3. Plaintiffs are the heirs of Nilmoni who died four years back, kali and Kunja Behari, defendant No. 1 were the sons of Nakur. The share of Kali in the suit property also vested in Kunja Behari who became co-sharer in respect of the undivided half share in the suit properry. In the last district settlement the names of the plaintiffs, their predecessor and co-sharers were rightly recorded, but in the revisional settlement due to the absence of the plaintiffs defendant No. 4 Jotgannath Marik in collusion with other co-sharers got it wrongly recorded. Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 had been claiming interest in the suit properry in collusion with other co-sharers. In the month of May preceding the institution of the suit plaintiff No. 3 came to know that the defendant No. 7 was also claiming a share in the undivided bastu of the plaintiffs' predecessor by purchasing the same from defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Defendants Nos. 4 to 8 were stranger purchasers in the suit property.