CHITTA RANJAN ROY Vs. DHIRENDRA NATH ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.01.2007 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.103 of 1994 making the Rule absolute setting aside the judgment and decree dated 06.02.1993 passed by the Subordinate Judge (Joint District Judge), Bagerhat in Title Appeal No.14 of 1989 reversing those dated 27.12.1988 passed by the Assistant Judge, Chitalamari in Title Suit No.11 of 1987 decreeing the suit for partition.

(2.) The facts of the case, in short, are that suit schedule lands belonged to original owner Mritunjoy who died leaving behind seven sons namely, Debicharan, Bani Kanta Troilakshya Nath, Totaram, Baroda, Sarat Chandra and Satish Chandra. Among them Totaram died leaving four sons namely, Kalipada, Bhupen, Dhiren and the plaintiffs, Birendra and among them Dhiren died unmarried leaving there brothers and thus plaintiffs inherited 1/3rd of 1/7th equivalent to 1.07 acres of land of Mritunjoy's property and further case of the plaintiff is that Debicharan died leaving behind wife Rashabati alias Jashabati and two daughters namely, Sonamoni and Moina and then Moina died issueless and Sonamoni died leaving behind one son Gopal, defendant No.14, who inherited the total share 1/7th of Debicharan and then by a registered kabala dated 03.05.1976 transferred 3.08 acres of land to the plaintiff for consideration of TK.5,000.00 and then the plaintiff claimed amicable partition of his 4.15 acres of land by inheritance purchase and which being refused filed the suit.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement contending, inter-alia, that Debicharan son of original owner Mritunjoy died in 1316 B.S. during life time of father Mritunjoy and Debicharan's wife and two daughters were maintained by Mritunjoy who before his surviving six sons making joint responsibility of all the surviving sons to maintain the wife and daughters of deceased sons Debicharan by them and thereafter Mritunjoy died in the year 1330 B.S. and the defendant No.14 never inherited nor possessed any property of Mritunjoy and the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd of 1/6th =1/18th share in the suit property by way of inheritance only and the defendant No.14 had no saleable right, title and interest and possession to transfer 3.08 acres of land to the plaintiff and S.A. records of the suit property was correct and the suit was filed for partition without proper cause of action and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.