Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S. Pandit
For the Respondents: Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee

Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:

1. The case involves a dispute over the ownership and partition of land originally belonging to a deceased individual, Benimadhab Roy, with the legal heirs being the respondent-plaintiffs and the appellants, who are the successors of Ram Dulal Roy (!) (!) .

2. The respondent-plaintiffs sought partition of the land, asserting their inheritance rights as legal heirs, while the appellants claimed rights based on possession and revenue records, which do not confer ownership (!) (!) .

3. The trial court examined the evidence, including revenue records (khatians), sale deeds, mutation reports, and other documents, concluding that revenue records do not establish ownership rights (!) (!) (!) (!) .

4. The trial court decreed the suit, granting each of the plaintiffs a one-third share of the land, and directed the parties to amicably partition the property or take further steps as necessary (!) (!) (!) .

5. The appellants argued that they were not properly notified or able to contest the suit due to lack of proper summons and that they possess rights through adverse possession, which was not adequately considered (!) (!) .

6. The respondent-plaintiffs contended that the appellants failed to produce valid title documents, and revenue records are not proof of ownership, emphasizing that the trial court's judgment was reasoned and based on the evidence (!) (!) (!) (!) .

7. The legal principle clarified that revenue records, such as khatians, do not confer or prove ownership rights, and adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal evidence of denial of the true owner's title and continuous hostile possession (!) (!) (!) (!) .

8. The court noted that the appellants did not produce any documentary evidence to establish exclusive ownership or adverse possession, and their claims were unsupported by the record (!) (!) (!) .

9. The court emphasized that possession of joint property by a co-sharer is presumed to be on behalf of all co-sharers unless there is clear evidence of ouster or denial of title, which was not demonstrated here (!) (!) (!) .

10. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment, with the court stating that the findings were well-reasoned and supported by the evidence, and that the appellants' claims of adverse possession and exclusive ownership were not substantiated (!) (!) .

11. The court directed that the final decree should be passed after considering the report of the Survey Commissioner, with a possibility of conducting a fresh survey if necessary, within a specified timeframe (!) .

These points summarize the core legal findings, issues, and conclusions of the case based on the provided document.