A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE respondent sued his other brothers for partition and accounts has obtained the preliminary decree impugned in this appeal. The main argument on behalf of the appellants against the preliminary decree is that the learned Judge ought to have held that the plaintiff has already received his share of the family ornaments before the suit and that the Vehicle in question was the exclusive property of the defendant No. 3 and, therefore, the learned Judge was wrong in decreeing partition of the ornaments and the Vehicle.

( 2 ) AS to the family ornaments, the case of the defendants is that by and under an amicable Agreement for partition between the parties about one and half year before the suit, it was agreed that the ornaments were to remain with the defendant No. 1 for the time being to be divided among them on the expiry of two months from the date of the agreement and that, to quote from paragraph 8 of the written statement, "in pursuance of that Agreement the plaintiff has taken his share of ornaments immediately on the expiry of two months time in the presence of the parties and some gentlemen of the locality". The learned Judge has disbelieved th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document