JUDGMENT

Arindam Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. Samar Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The short question involved in this first appeal is that one Girish Chandra Nama was the owner of the suit land. He died. After his death his two sons and two daughters became the owners of the suit land. Thereafter, on expiry of the sons and daughters of Girish Chandra Nama, their sons and daughters became the owners of the suit land. The dispute in the suit concerns the selling of land by the wife and son of Surendra Nama to Matilal Malakar. Surendra Nama had six sons and daughters. His wife Smt. Kiranbala Nama and his son Ratan Nama had sold their shares to Matilal Malakar. Matilal Malakar had sold the land to Bidhan Dhar, the plaintiff of the suit. The land of Girish Chandra Nama was not partitioned amongst the legal heirs. Situated thus, Bidhan Dhar had filed a suit for declaring of his share and partition of the entire land left by original owner, Girish Chandra Nama. Surendra Nama was one of the sons of Grish Chandra Nama and it is admitted fact that Smt. Kiran Bala Nama, the wife of late Surendra Nama and Sri Ratan Nama, one of the sons of late Surendra Nama had sold their 2/6th shares. It is proved that Smt. Kiran Bala Nama and Sri Ratan Nama had sold their 2/6th share to Matilal Malakar who sold the land to Bidhan Dhar. The suit was decreed by learned trial court declaring the selling of 2/6th share of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff by Smt. Kiran Bala Nama and Sri Ratan Nama, the two inheritors out of the total six inheritors of late Surendra Nama is valid in the eye of law.

3. Mr. Samar Das, learned counsel appearing for the defendants, i.e. the appellants herein had submitted that the learned trial court had committed an error of law in declaring the shares of the wife and one son of late Surendra Nama for the reason that the land was not partitioned amongst the legal heirs of the original owner of the land, namely, Girish Chandra Nama.

4. We are unable to agree with the submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellants. It is settled proposition of law that share of a co-owner can be sold but demarcating the land and identifying the portion of the sold land will be illegal. Here, the only shares of Smt. Kiran Bala Nama and Ratan Nama had been sold without any demarcation or identification of the land sold to Matilal Malakar who thereafter sold the land to Bidhan Dhar. As such, we find no infirmity in the decree passed by learned trial court declaring the 2/6th of 1/4th share [i.e. the shares of wife of late Surendra Nama, namely, Smt. Kiranbala Nama and one of his sons, namely, Ratan Nama] in favour of the plaintiff over the suit land measuring 0.04 acres coupled with the decree of partition of the entire land between the co-sharers i.e. the descendants of late Girish Chandra Nama. We are also in agreement with the learned trial court that the defendants had failed to establish their claim of declaring the registered sale deed in question as void. Accordingly, the instant appeal deserves no merit and thus, dismissed.

Send down the LCRs.