JUDGMENT :

(Sugato Majumdar, J.) :

1. The instant suit was filed for partition and administration of the estate.

2. There were five suit properties initially. These properties were:

1. 8B, Nabin Pal Lane, Kolkata;

2. 16, Beniatola Lane, Kolkata;

3. 17, Beniatola Lane, Kolkata;

4. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Kolkata;

5. 31, College Row, Kolkata.

3. Preliminary decree of the suit was passed by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court on 8th August, 1994. In terms of the preliminary decree the properties located at premises no. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Kolkata and 31, College Row, Kolkata were kept outside the ambit of the present suit. This Court decided that, so for as the other three properties are concerned, the original Plaintiffs are jointly entitled to 50% of the share of these properties and the original Defendants are jointly entitled to rest of the 50% of these properties. An appeal was preferred. On appeal against the said preliminary decree, the Division Bench remanded the matter for fresh trial in respect of the properties located at premises no. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Kolkata and 31, College Row, Kolkata. But the Division Bench upheld the preliminary decree so far as the properties located at premises no. 8B, Nabin Pal Lane, Kolklata; 16, Beniatola Lane, Kolkata and 17, Beniatola Lane, Kolkata are concerned. In terms of the said preliminary decree the Co-Ordinate Bench directed to appoint Partition Commissioner for partition in respect of the last mentioned three properties.

4. During pendency, the original Plaintiffs did not proceed with the suit for which then Defendant No.1,3,5 and 6 were transposed as Plaintiffs and other Defendants were arrayed as Defendant no.2(a), 2(b) and 3.

5. The suit was heard on remand and preliminary decree was passed in terms of the judgment dated 24th February, 2023. In terms of the later preliminary decree dated 24th February, 2023, again this Court decided that the properties located at premises no. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Kolkata and 31, College Row, Kolkata are not joint properties for which these properties should not be subject to partition in the present suit. These two properties were kept outside the ambit of the present suit.

6. Partition Commissioner had submitted her report in terms of the previous preliminary decree dated 8th August, 1994. Since, the said preliminary decree was not wholly set aside by the Division Bench and upheld the findings in respect of the other three properties, appointment of the Partition Commissioner as well as proceeding with partition of the properties located at premises no. 8B, Nabin Pal Lane, Kolklata; 16, Beniatola Lane, Kolkata and 17, Beniatola Lane, Kolkata by metes and bounds was not impugned. The Partition Commissioner, after submission of the report was examined by the Court and the Report of the Partition Commissioner was marked as Ext.18.

7. Now this Court passed the final judgement in this suit for partition based on the Report of the Partition Commissioner, marked as Ext.18, in terms of the following directions:

1. In the original preliminary decree dated 8th August, 1994 shares of the parties were declared as:

Thereafter the parties were transposed in terms of order(s) of this Court.

Hence, it is directed that in conformity with the preliminary decree dated 8th August, 1994, the shares of the parties shall be as follow in respect of properties located at premises no. 8B, Nabin Pal Lane, Kolklata; 16, Beniatola Lane, Kolkata and 17, Beniatola Lane, Kolkata :

Shares of the parties are more specified as follows, as submitted by the Learned Counsel Mr. Paul Chowdhury: