JUDGMENT :

SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 22.03.2017 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, 4th Court Suri, Birbhum in Title Appeal No. 73 of 2013.

2. Through the impugned judgment the Ld. First Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2013 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Suri, Birbhum in Title suit No. 27 of 2007, thereby dismissing the title appeal. Through the said judgment the Ld. Trial Court has passed the judgment in preliminary form.

3. Factual Matrix:

The present lis involves partition of suit property. The title suit has been filed by Smt. Sati Mondal and Anima Kabiraj against the defendants seeking partition of the suit property left by their great grand-father namely Siddheswar Ghosh.

The Trial Court ultimately decreed the suit in preliminary form and declared that the plaintiffs have 5/18th share in the suit property and the remaining portion of the suit property be given to the defendants.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court the defendants No. 2, 3, 4, 12, 13 and 14 namely Kalpana Ghosh, Soumen Ghosh, Partha Ghosh, Sunil Kr. Ghosh, Rabindra Nath Ghosh and Anjali Ghosh preferred the title appeal wherein the impugned order has been passed affirming the preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court.

The present appeal has been filed by the self same defendants who preferred the title appeal. During the pendency of the present appeal Kalpana Ghosh has expired.

4. The fact of the case is that the suit property belonged to Siddheswar Ghosh who was the predecessor of the parties to the suit. The said Siddheswar Ghosh executed a Will dated 21.07.1948 and expired during the year 1949. This said Will revolves around the Will executed by Siddheswar Ghosh. The Will has been probated on 12.03.1951.

5. Mr. Ganesh Srivastava, the learned senior counsel being assisted by Mr. Snehasis Jana, Mrs. T. Das and Mrs. A. B. Maity the Ld. Advocates representing the appellants during his elaborate submission has stated that:

i) On the death of Snehalata (one of the daughters of Siddheswar Ghosh) who died without having any son or daughter, as per the Will made by her father, her shares ought to devolve upon the sons and daughters of the other sisters and not to the grand- sons and the grand-daughters that is the respondents/plaintiffs.

ii) He has further submitted that the plaintiffs /respondents no.1 and 2 claims their share from Santosh Kumar Ghosh who was their father and has predeceased (expired on 14.10.1991) his mother namely Sarojbasini Ghosh (who expired on 25.07.1992), so as Santosh having expired prior to the death of his mother Sarojbasini who was having life estate in respect of her share of the suit property at that relevant point of time so the respondents/plaintiffs ultimately do not inherit any portion of the suit property.

iii) The learned counsel has further submitted that by making of a Will a person gives a different direction to the divesting of the property to his or her legal heirs deviating from the general rules of succession.

iv) He has further submitted that once the Will has been probated the general perspective of inheritance is not to be taken into consideration; on the contrary the intention of the testator is to be fully abided by.

v) He has further submitted that where there is no ambiguity in a deed, literal meaning is to be adhered to. In the present case the probated Will which we are concerned with has no ambiguity so literal meaning of the words and sentences mentioned in the Will are to be given effect to, apart from that it cannot be interpreted otherwise.

vi) The learned senior counsel has further submitted that both the trial court and the first appellate court have misinterpreted the probated Will and have taken the general path of inheritance while considering the rights of the parties.

vii) He has time and a