ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.04.2022 passed in Regular First Appeal No.5/2021 by the High Court of Judicature at Tripura by which the First Appeal arising out of a preliminary judgment and preliminary decree dated 20.02.2021 and 23.02.2021 respectively, in TS(Partition) 13 of 2018 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge(Senior Division), Udaipur, Gomati District, Tripura holding that the execution of the Will (Ext.C) had not been proved and thus the plaintiffs and defendants were equally entitled to 1/6th share of the subject matter of Schedules B(i) and B(ii) land has been reversed by the High Court and the said Regular First Appeal has been allowed, plaintiff No.3/appellant in the said suit has preferred this appeal.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Kariram Ghosh had two sons namely, Tarani Ghosh and Nabin Chandra Ghosh. Tarini Ghosh, Nabin Chandra Ghosh and Kanaki Bala Ghosh (wife of Nabin Chandra Ghosh) were allotted certain land by the State Government which was divided by way of a compromise as Schedule A, Schedule B (i), and Schedule B(ii) respectively. One of the brothers, Nabin Chandra Ghose, who was the sole owner of the schedule B(i) property passed away on 20.01.1982 leaving behind his widow-Kanaki Bala Ghosh as the sole legal heir. The other brother Tarani Ghosh was the sole owner of schedule A property and he passed away on 15.01.1991 leaving behind his widow-Bindu Ghosh, four daughters and two sons as legal heirs. Three out of the four daughters are the plaintiffs including the appellant herein whereas the other daughter and two sons are the defendants who are the respondents herein. After the death of Tarani Ghosh on 15.01.1991, he left behind the Schedule 'A' land, which his four daughters and two sons inherited. Consequently, the land was recorded in their names. Kanaki Bala Ghosh passed away on 01.07.2001, issueless, leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants as her sole legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Thus, the plaintiffs and defendants became joint owners of the entire Schedule 'A', 'B(i)', and 'B(ii)' lands in equal shares, without any formal partition.

4. The plaintiffs made several requests to the defendants for partition of the suit land. However, the defendants repeatedly delayed the matter, and on 15.03.2013, they finally refused plaintiffs’ request for partition. Consequently, the plaintiffs instituted Suit No. TS(P) 16 of 2013 seeking partition of the suit land. The said suit was decreed on contest on 16.06.2014. Pursuant to this, RFA 7 of 2014 was filed by Defendant No. 2, and the plaintiffs filed RFA 10 of 2014 before the High Court. By a common judgment dated 05.06.2017, the High Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, directing the parties to file a fresh suit after addressing the defects pointed out. Accordingly, the plaintiffs instituted the suit in T.S.(P) No. 13 of 2018 in the Court Civil Judge Senior Division, Gomati Udaipur, seeking a decree for the partition of the suit land into equal shares.

5. Defendant No.3 did not contest the suit and defendant No.2 supported the case of the plaintiffs. Contesting the suit, defendant No.1/respondent No.1 filed a written statement contending that plaintiff No.1/appellant/Charu Bala Ghosh, and defendant No.3/Smt. Parul Ghosh, are not the daughters of Tarani Ghosh and, therefore, are not entitled to any share in the suit property. It was further pleaded that the survival certificates concerning Tarani Ghosh, Nabin Chandra Ghosh, and Kanaki Bala Ghosh, which identify