Daughters of a deceased property owner have an equal right to inheritance, and prior exclusions are void under current inheritance laws.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard T. K. Deb, learned counsel assisted by Mr. A. K. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. During the course of argument, learned counsel appearing for the appellants upon instructions has submitted that he is not pressing the present appeal for the other appellants except the appellant No.1 and 2 i.e. Smti. Swapna Roy (Karmakar) and Sri Suraj Karmakar. Accordingly, the present appeal insofar as the other appellants i.e. Sri Ajit Kumar Roy, appellant-respondent No.1, Sri Babul Roy, appellant-respondent No.2, Sri Ajay Roy, appellanbt-respondent-3, Sri Prabodh Chandra Roy, appellant-respondent No.4, Sri Apu Roy, appellant No.3, Mrs. Rekha Roy, appellant No.4, Smti. Titu Roy, appellant No.5, Smti. Mithu Roy, appellant No.6, Sri Pritam Chanda, appellant No.8, Smti. Uma Roy, appellant No.9 and Smti. Rama Roy (Das), appellant No.10 stands dismissed as not pressed.

3. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC read with Section-151 of the CPC for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2019 and 16.12.2019 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura District, Agartala in connection with Title Appeal No.53 of 2011 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Court No.2, Agartala in Title Suit (Partition) 61 of 2006. At the time of admitting the appeal, the following substantial question of law was formulated by this Court:

'Whether the findings of the learned First Appellate Court are perverse and based on no evidence?'

4. The facts that would essentially be required for appreciating the substantial questions of law may be introduced at the beginning. The factual background of the plaintiff's case, in a nutshell, is that the The factual matrix of the plaintiff's case in brief may be summarized is that the predecessor in interest of plaintiff and defendants Lt. Chandra Kishore Roy was the owner of land measuring 2 kanies 4 gandas 1 kara 2 kranta and 2 dhurs classified as bastu, pond and bank of pond. The said Lt.Chandra Kishore Roy died leaving behind 5 sons and 2 daughters namely (1) Nikunja Kishore Roy, (2) Jagat Kishore Roy, (3) Barada Kishore Roy, (4) Hem Kishore Roy, (5) Binod Behari Roy (all are sons of Lt.Chandra Kishore Roy) and (1) Smt. Bimala Roy and (2) Smt. Pramila Roy (are two daughters of Lt. Chandra Kishore Roy).

5. The Lt.Chandra Kishore Roy died without making any partition of the property. After the death of Lt.Chandra Kishore Roy in the year 1987 the daughter of deceased Hem Kishore Roy and granddaughter of Lt.Chandra Kishore Roy namely Smti Chhaya Roy and wife of Hem Kishore Roy and daughter in law of Lt. Chandra Kishore Roy namely Lt. Sarada Roy executed a gift deed in favour of all the 3 sons of Lt. Hem Kishore Roy and grand sons of Lt.Chandra Kishore Roy (through Lt. Hem Kishore Roy) illegally depriving the legal heirs of one daughter of Lt.Hem Kishore Roy and granddaughter of Lt. Chandra Kishore Roy namely Smt. Swapna Roy(Karmakar) daughter of Lt.Prava Roy ( Lt.Prava Roy is the one of daughter of Lt.Hem Kishore Roy and granddaughter of Lt.Chandra Kishore Roy) mentioning as 2/5th share of inherited land of Lt.Hem Kishore Roy and therefore the said gift deed is liable to be declared as illegal, inoperative and void.

6. It is further case of the plaintiff that in the year 1987 on 30- 12-1987 the legal heirs of Lt.Chandra Kishore Roy illegally