JUDGMENT :

Soumen Sen, J.

1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants.

2. The appeal is defective. We also record that we could have dismissed the appeal for non-removal of the defects but we decide to hear the learned Counsel for the appellants on the grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal for admission.

3. The matter was adjourned on 19th January, 2023 on the prayer of the learned Advocate for the appellants.

4. The appeal is arising out of an appellate decree dated 30th June, 2016 affirming the judgment and decree dated 29th November, 2011 passed by the trial court in a suit for title, confirmation, possession and permanent injunction.

5. We have read the judgments of the trial court as well as of the first appellate court. We have also read the memorandum of appeal in order to ascertain whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law.

6. Briefly stated, the suit was originally belonged to the predecessors of the plaintiffs and the principal defendants, namely, Surendra Nath Biswas. During his lifetime, the wife of Surendra expired. Subsequently, Surendra Nath also died leaving behind the defendant no.1 as his only son, the plaintiff and Sudha Rani as