04 1166..0099..22002266 Ct. No. 21 Jayanta CO/324/2026 SUGATA BOSE AND ANR. VS SARMILA BOSE. Adv. Kaushik Dey Adv. S. Dasgupta Adv. Nilankan Banerjee Adv. P. Basu …. For the Petitioners. Adv. Bhaskar Mukherjee Adv. N. Yasmin … for the Opposite Party. 1. The fact of the present lis is that the property belonged the father and on his demise it was inherited by the spouse (mother) and the two sons and daughter. Thereafter, the mother expired leaving behind a Will through which she bequeathed her entire share in equal proportion in favour of her two sons and subsequently the said Will has been granted probate, which has given rise to the situation. 2. The learned Counsel representing the Petitioners submits that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 24th December, 2025 passed by the learned Trial Judge in Title Suit No. 12608 of 2014, whereby the application dated 5th May, 2022 filed on behalf of the Petitioners/Defendants No. 2 & 3 have been considered and rejected. They have preferred the present Civil Revisional Application. 3. He further submits that the Petitioners are the Defendants No. 2 & 3 and are the brothers of the 2 Plaintiff who is their sister. He further submits that the property originally belonged to their father and on his demise the property developed upon the Plaintiff and the Defendants which included their mother who was the Defendant No. 1. 4. Subsequently, on the day of 22nd February, 2020 the Defendant No. 1, i.e, the mother expired leaving behind a Will. The said Will has been probated and the Petitioners/Defendants have received the share of their mother in equal proportion. As such the Petitioners who were initially entitled to 1/4th share each on the expiry of their father, have now 37.5 percent each of the entire share. 5. He further submits that the remaining 25 percent in respect of the entire property cannot be partioned by meets and bounds and the Petitioners’ that is both the brothers intend to purchase the share from the Opposite Party/Plaintiff, i.e, their sister at fair price. 6. He further submits that the application dated 5th May, 2022 had been filed under Order XX Rule 18 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and though the said application the Defendants/Petitioners had prayed for determining the actual shares of the Defendants, which has been turned down by the learned Trial Judge. 7. Learned Counsel representing the Opposite Party is not at logger heads with the Petitioners but 3 submits that the Opposite Party/sister being the Plaintiff in the partition Suit intends to sale her share which may be purchased by the Petitioners/Defendants, i.e, her brothers but her only intention is to receive the fair price in respect of her share. 8. On going through the contentions to the learned Counsel representing the Petitioners’ brothers Defendants and the Opposite Party sister Plaintiff. It transpires that both the brothers and the sister are at adidem that the share of the sister can be purchased by the brothers but the only contention herein is that the purchase shall have to take place at fair price. 9. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances and after taking into consideration the submission of the learned Counsel the impugned order dated 24th December, 2025 whereby the learned Trial Judge has been pleased to reject the application made by the brothers, i.e, the Defendants No. 2 & 3, is being set aside. 10. The learned Trial judge is requested to proceed with the matter taking into consideration that after the passing of the preliminary decree some developments have taken place that is the mother that the Defendant No. 1 who was having 1/4th share has expired on 22nd February 2020 and subsequently a Will through which the mother bequeathed her share equally as she had left behind a Will in favour of her 4 two sons have been probated. Both the sons have acquired in equal proportion the share of their mother. 11. Taking into consideration this fact the quantum of share of the brothers, i.e, Defendants No. 2 & 3 have enhanced. 12. Presently the share of the sister, i.e, the Plaintiff which has been declared to be 1/4th remains the same. Now, the Defendant Nos. 2 & 3, i.e, the two brothers, intends to purchase the share of the Plaintiff sister so the learned Court is to proceed as per the applications to be filed by the parties as regards to purchase of the share of their sister Plaintiff by the Defendants bothers in accordance with law after taking into consideration the fact of enhancement of the share of the brothers. 13. The learned Trial Judge is requested to carry out the process in accordance with law as laid down, hereinabove, subject to steps taken by the parties at the earliest preferably within six months. 14. While taking up the procedure as has been laid down the learned Trial Judge shall dispose of the applications which are lying pending. 15. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)