Tapan Kumar Dutt, J.

This Court has heard the learned Advocate for the respective parties and has considered the relevant materials on record.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are as follows :

The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for partition in respect of certain plot of land with structure thereon and the plot according to the preliminary decree in the partition suit comprises of an area of 65 decimals. The suit was decreed in 2 preliminary form whereby it was decreed that the plaintiffs have eight annas share in the suit property and it is not in dispute that the defendant/respondent also has eight annas share in the suit property. The partition commissioner was appointed and the work of partition was done. It may be noted here that the preliminary decree was not challenged by any of the parties. The commissioner of partition gave his final report and on the basis of such final report the suit was finally decreed by the learned Trial Court on 16.02.1999. Thus, the learned Trial Court being the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Hooghly decreed the Title Suit No.175 of 1989 finally on the basis of the said Commissioners report. Challenging the said de