In joint property disputes, a thorough examination of ownership rights and title documents is essential for fair adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

T. Amarnath Goud, J

1. This is an appeal under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment & Decree dated 07.10.2023 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala, in Case No.T.S(P)92/2020.

2. The plaintiff-appellants’ case, in brief, is that the plaintiffs and proforma defendants no.5-10 are full-blooded brothers and sisters. The predecessor of the defendants no. 1 to 3 and the mother of pro-forma defendant no. 4 were the plaintiffs' full-blooded brother and sister respectively. The actual owner of the suit land Lt Madan Mohan Sarkar was the paternal grandfather of plaintiffs and proforma defendants no.5-10, was paternal grandfather-in-law of defendant no.1 and paternal great-grandfather of defendant no. 2 and 3 and maternal great-grandfather of proforma-defendant no.4. Lt Madan Mohan Sarkar died leaving behind his two sons named Ramani Mohan Sarkar (now deceased) and Sudhir Sarkar (now deceased). After the death of Lt Madan Mohan Sarkar, by way of inheritance his two sons named Lt Ramani Mohan Sarkar and Lt Sudhir Sarkar became the joint owners of the suit property. Subsequently, Lt Ramani Mohan Sarkar expired in the year 2002 leaving behind his three sons i.e. the two plaintiffs and predecessor-in-interest of the principal defendants and seven daughters i.e. the pro-defendant nos.5 to 10 and the predecessor-in-interest (mother) of proforma-defendant no.4 i.e. Lt Sita Rani Chowdhury (Sarkar).

3. Subsequently, the plaintiffs, predecessors of the defendants and proforma- defendant no.4 as well as the other proforma-defendants filed a partition suit b/n. TS(P) 118 of 2004 against their paternal uncle Sudhir Sarkar (now deceased) before the Court of Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Agartala. West Tripura and that suit was finally decreed on 17.07.2006 on being compromised among the parties. As per the said decree the plaintiffs, predecessor of the defendants and the proforma-defendants have jointly got the land measuring 1.99 acres reflected in the Schedule-B(1) of that said partition decree and Lt Sudhir Sarkar and others jointly got the land measuring 1.75 acres mentioned in the Schedule-B(2) of that decree. It is further asseverated that before filing of that partition suit and during the lifetime of Lt Ramani Mohan Sarkar, schedule-B(1) of that partition suit and other plots of land were bequeathed by Lt Ramani Mohan Sarkar being his share with his brother Sudhir Sarkar to both the plaintiffs and predecessor of the defendants named Late Pradip Sarkar by dint of a Registered WILL b/n.III-151 dated 17.06.1996. But, before institution of that partition suit the plaintiffs had no knowledge about the said will and they came to know about the will during the pendency of that suit i.e. TS(P) 118/2004. Thereafter, on mutual discussion a compromise was made among the parties and a decree on compromise was passed on 17.07.2006.

4. It is the further asserted by the plaintiffs that in the partition suit TS(P) 118 of 2004 some other land of Late Ramani Mohan Sarka measuring 1.04 acres described in 'KA' Schedule of the Will dated 17.06.1996 and a small area of land measuring 0.01 acre being a dokan Viti under Sabek Plot No.PB-247-5079/P, Hal Plot No.5948, Khatian No.229 was not included in the schedule of the said partition suit. Late Ramani Mohan Sarkar bequeathed the said portion of land and dokan Viti to the predecessor of defendants Late Pradip Sarkar by dint of the aforementioned registered wil reflected in the Schedule 'KHA' of that will and specifically described in the Schedule-C of the instant plaint. The plaintiffs further asserted that the subject matter of the present suit is the land of said registered Will by which Late Ramani Mohan Sarkar bequeathed his entire land to his three sons including the land mentioned in Schedule- B(1) of the decree passed in TS(P 118 of 2004, measuring 3.04 acres described in Schedule-A of this plaint. The plaintiffs further asserted that as per the registered W