In partition suits, absence of necessary parties is not fatal if no prior direction was given to join them, emphasizing the importance of pleadings in judicial processes.

JUDGMENT :

(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)

1. The instant appeal has been preferred on behest of the plaintiffs/ appellants challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.02.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Krishnagar, Nadia in connection with T.S. No. 191 of 2014.

2. By passing of the impugned judgment and decree the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs praying for partition in respect of the suit properties as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court the instant appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants.

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property originally belonged to Sukchand Bawri, Phulchand Bawri, Kumari Bawri, Laba Bawri in equal shares and their names have been duly recorded in R.S. Khatian No. 271. Thereafter, these said R.S. recorded tenants transferred their shares to Prabodh Kumar Sarkar and Prabhat Kumar Sarkar and thus, they became owners in respect of the suit plots to the extent of 8.25 decimals of land. Prabodh Kumar Sarkar and Prabhat Kumar Sarkar transferred their 8.25 decimal of land to Gautam Ghosh, Purna Chandra Ghosh and Priyabrata Ghosh by dint of registered deed of sale being No. 9968 dated 09.08.1988. Gautam Chandra Ghosh and Purna Chandra Ghosh jointly sold the land from their shares of 2 decimals to Priyabrata Ghosh on 29.10.2010 by dint of registered deed of sale being No. 3770. After that the said Priyabrata sold 1.77 decimals of land from his purchased portion to Gouranga Ghosh who in turn transferred his 1.77 decimals of land to the plaintiff No. 2 by a registered deed No. 12297 dated 10.10.2012. After that the said Priyabrata again sold 2.66 decimals in the scheduled plot to the plaintiff No. 1 on 10.10.2012 by a registered sale deed being No. 12999 and this plaintiff No. 1 is the mother of plaintiff No. 2. It is stated by the appellants/plaintiffs that their names have been duly recorded in the present record of rights and they are paying revenue to the government.

5. It is stated by the appellants/plaintiffs that the defendants are the co-sharers and the co-owners of the scheduled plot of land with them and those defendants became co-sharers after gradual transfers from the original owners Sukchand and others.

6. These appellants are in enjoyment and possession with the defendants/respondents as the scheduled properties have not yet been partitioned by metes and bounds and in accordance with law. As the defendants/respondents are creating disturbance in the peaceful joint possession of the parties these plaintiffs under compelling circumstances knocked the door of the Court with a prayer for partition of the suit properties as per provision of law.

7. Defendants entered appearance in the suit before the Trial Court and filed written statement by stating that Gautam Ghosh, Purna Chandra and Priyabrata Ghosh were the owners in respect of 8.25 decimals of land in the suit property which they got by dint of registered deed of sale being No. 9968 dated 09.08.1988 from Prabhat Kumar Sarkar and Probodh Kumar Sarkar with proper specification. It is averred by the defendants that Gautam Ghosh, Purna Ghosh and Priyabrata Ghosh sold away 8 decimals of land of the suit plot with proper specification to the defendant No. 1 on 29.10.2010 by deed of sale being No. 13769 and sin