In partition suits, the court must assess the property's nature to determine if partition is feasible without creating a fragment, as mandated by local regulations.

JUDGMENT

Arindam Lodh, J. - As we had heard Mr. K. Datta, learned counsel representing the appellants substantially on 04.02.2022, we proceeded to hear Mr. B. Saha, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment dated 29.08.2019 and decree dated 07.09.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court no. 1 in case No. Title Suit (Partition) 36 of 2018.

3. Considering the arguments, as advanced by Mr. Datta, learned counsel, we have perused the judgment passed by the learned trial court. The present suit instituted by the plaintiffs is a suit for partition concerning the suit land measuring 0.0830 acres. It is a very small piece of land, but, sharers are more compared to the land. Here we find there are eight co-sharers. Having considered the land in question and the number of co-sharers, the learned trial court had observed thus:

'So the situation as it prevails now is that there is a piece of land measuring 0.0830 acres which converted to square feet comes to 3615.48 square foot. As the gift deeds went off, this land is required to be partitioned in eight shares. One share is of late Rajabala Banik (W/O Late Brajendra Lal Banik) which will be again distributed equally amongst the remaining seven as she is no more. One share will be given to plaintiff no. 1(A) and 1(B) being heirs of Birendra Lal Banik. Similarly plaintiff no. 2(A) to 2(F) and the defendant will be entitled for one share being heirs of Bidhan Banik. Plaintiff No. 7 being the only legal heir of Maya Banik will get one share. Remaining plaintiff Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 will get one share each. So each of the share will come to 516.4 square foot approximately which in case of plaintiff no. 1, 2 and the defendant will again get further divided. The defendant and plaintiff no. 2(A) to (F) will get one-seventh share of 516.4 square foot which will stand around 73 square foot approximately.

The partition of the suit land will certainly lead to fragmentation of the suit land which is otherwise not permitted under the local law of Tripura Land Revenue and land Reforms Act, 1960. The relevant section 181 of the Act runs: Partition of holding. (1) No holding shall be partitioned in such manner as to create a fragment. (2) A fragment shall not be partitioned unless as a result of such partition its portions get merged in holdings of two standard acres or more or in fragments so as to create holdings of two standard acres or more.

In this regard I have also travelled through the judgment reported in Shasidhar & Others v. Ashwini Uma Mathad & Anr. 2015 STPL(LE) 49921 SC) in which the principles upon which a suit for partition can be adjudicated has been discussed intricately.

Para 24 of the judgment requires to be reproduced for the sake of discussion which is going on.

'24. We may consider it apposite to state being a well settled principle of law that in a suit filed by a co-sharer, coparcener, co-owner or joint owner, as the case may be, for partition and separate possession of his/her share qua others, it is necessary for the Court to examine, in the first instance, the nature and character of the properties in suit such as who was the original owner of the suit properties, how and by which source he/she acquired such properties, whether it was his/her self-acquired property or ancestral property, or joint property or coparcenary property in his/her hand and, if so, who are/were the coparceners or joint owners with him/her as the case may be. Secondly, how the devolution of his/her interest in the property took place consequent upon his/her death on surviving members of the family and in what proportion, whether he/she died intestate or left behind any testamentary succession in favour of any family member or outsider to inherit his/her share in properties and if s