JUDGMENT T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This is an appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment dated 09.04.2018 and decree dated 23.04.2018 passed in T.S.(Partition) 13 of 2015 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Udaipur, District: Gomati Tripura. 2. The facts leading to this appeal are that respondent No.1 being the plaintiff preferred the suit seeking partition and separate possession of ancestral landed property of himself and the defendants-respondents No.2 to 18 (hereinafter called the respondents) as inherited from Nagendranath Chakraborty (since deceased) in respect of the land as described in 'Schedule A' of the pliant measuring 3.50 acres recorded in Khatians No.432(1 to 3) mouza Uttar Chandrapur, Tehshil: Matarbari, Sub-division, Udaipur, District: Gomati Tripura. 3. Sri Nagendra Chakraborty owner of land measuring 4.32 acres of land as detailed in 'Schedule A' of the pliant died intestate on 14.11.1977 AD leaving behind his legal heirs namely, i) Smt. Haimabati Chakraborty-wife, ii) Sri Manmatha Nath Chakraborty-son, iii) Sri Gopesh Chakraborty-son, iv) Sri Shilesh Chandra Chakraborty-son, v) Sri Paresh Chandra Chakraborty-son, vi) Smt. Snehalata Chakraborty-Daughter, vii) Smt. Amiya Bala Chakraborty-daughter, viii) Smt. Mira Chakraborty-daughter. 4. Sri Manmatha Nath Chakraborty died intestate on 19.02.1985 A.D leaving behind him his wife Basana Chakraborty and son Sri Tapan Chakraborty who stepped into the shoes of deceased Manmatha Nath Chakraborty in equal share. Smt. Haimabati Chakraborty, wife of late Nagendra Nath Chakraborty also died intestate on 19.12.1994. The 1/8th share of Himabati Chakraborty was devolved upon the remaining three brothers, three sisters, and wife and son of pre-deceased Manmatha Nath Chakraborty. Sri Gopesh Chandra Chakraborty also died on 1995 A.D. leaving behind him his wife Sabita Chakraborty, son -Apurba Chakraborty, daughters Rama Chakraborty and Smt. Bina Chakraborty who took the share of Gopesh Chandra Chakraborty in the property left by Nagendra Nath Chakraborty in equal shares. Smt. Amiyabala Chakraborty also died on 19.05.2004 leaving behind her two sons, namely Amar Chakraborty, Sri Maran Chakraborty, and daughters-Smt. Dipa Banerjee, Smt. Rita Ganguly and Smt. Mira Chakraborty. 5. Smt. Amiyabala Chakraborty also died on 19.05.2004 leaving behind her two sons, namely Amar Chakraborty, Sri Maran Chakraborty, and daughters-Smt. Dipa Banerjee, Smt. Rita Ganguly and Smt. Mira Chakraborty. 5. Now the share of the successors to the property left by Nagendra Nath Chakraborty is as follows i) Smt. Basana Chakraborty (defendant 140-1/14th, ii) Sri Tapan Chakraborty (plaintiff)-1/14th, iii) Sri Sailesh Chandra Chakraborty(defendant 1)-1/7th, iv) Sri Paresh Chandra Chakraborty (defendant 2)-1/7th, v) Smt. Sabit Chakraborty (defendant 3) -1/28th, vi) Sri Apurba Chakraborty (defendant 4)-1/28th, vii) Smt. Rama Chakraborty(defendant 5)-1/28th, viii) Smt. Bina Chakraborty (defendant 6)-1/28th, ix) Smt. Snelata Chakraborty (defendant 7)-1/7th, x) Smt. Mira Chakraborty (defendant 8)-1/7th, xi) Sri Amar Chakraborty (defendant 9)-1/35th, xii) Sri Maran Chakraborty (defendant 10) 1/35th, xiii) Smt. Dipa Banerjee (defendant 11)-1/35th, xiv) Smt. Rita Ganguly (defendant 12) -1/35th and xv) Smt. Mira Chakraborty (defendant 13)-1/35th. 6. Out of the land measuring 4.32 acres, an area measuring 0.82 acres (as described in Schedule B of the plaint) had been acquired by the Government for railway construction and thus reduced the land left by deceased Nagendra Nath Chakraborty to 3.50 acres as described in the 'Schedule A' of the pliant (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). Out of 'A' Schedule land, an area measuring 0.67 acres had wrongly been recorded in Khatian No.1353 of mouza Uttar Chandrapur in favour of defendant No. 3 which is also a part of the suit land. 7. Out of the suit land an area measuring 0.055 acres as described in 'Schedule D-1' was sold jointly by defendant 1- Sailesh Chandra Chakraborty (then he was alive) and Sri Gopesh Chandra Chakraborty (then he was alive)- predecessors of defendants No.3, 4, 5 and 6 to one Subhash Chandra Das under registered sale deed No.2162 of 1986. Side Subhash Chandra Das in the meantime died and his successor was impleaded as defendants No. 15(a), 15(b), 15(c), 15(d), 15(e), and 15(f). 8. Out of the suit land an area measuring 0.055 acres as described in 'Schedule d-2' was sold jointly by defendants 1 and Sri Gopal Chandra Chakraborty (predecessors of defendants 3, 4, 5, and 6) and Smt. Haimabati Chakraborty wife of deceased Nagendra Nath Chakraborty under registered sale deed No.2163 of 1986 to one Jogesh Chandra Bhowmik (defendant No. 16) and he is in possession over the said plot of land. 9. 9. Out of the suit land an area measuring 0.14 acre as described in 'Schedule D-3' was sold jointly by defendants No.1 and 2 under registered sale deed No.1386 of 1997 to one Dulal Kanti Majudmer (defendant No.17) and he is in possession over the said plot of land. 10. The plaintiff-respondent herein was residing in Kolkata in his place of work as a Government employee since 29.09.2014. He requested over the telephone to the coparceners for partition of the suit land but to no avail. Then the plaintiff on 27.07.2015 send letters to the coparceners seeking partition of the suit land amicably. On 24.08.2015, the plaintiff-respondent herein visited Chandrapur and met defendants 1, 2, and 3 when they apprised him of the facts of acquisition of land by the Government and of the fact regarding making separate Khatian No.1353 of Mouza Uttar Chandrapur in favour of defendant No.3 for land measuring 0.67 acres of land (Schedule C) out of the suit land. 11. According to the plaintiff-respondent herein the suit land is still undivided and the plaintiff-respondent has joint occupation over it. Taking advantage of illegal entries in the record of rights, defendant No.3 solely drew compensation of an amount of Rs.47,880/- from the L.A. Department for the acquisition of land measuring 0.67 acres (under Schedule C) to which the plaintiff had 1/4th share. 12. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff-respondent herein as plaintiff instituted T.S.(Partition) 13 of 2015 and sought the following reliefs:- a) Declaration that the plaintiff has got 1/14th Shares in undivided suit land and entitled to separate possession thereof; b) Direction to defendant No.3 to pay the plaintiff 1/14th share from the compensation money received by her from the L.A. Department for acquisition of land of Plot No.616/3225. c) Direction to the defendant to make partition of the suit land by metes and bounds amicably within a period to be fixed by the learned Court; d) In case of failure to make partition with separate possession of the suit land by metes and bounds amicably within the period to be fixed by the learned Court to direct such partition to be make by the Collector or any Deputy Collector subordinate to the Collector deputed by the Collector in this behalf. 13. The defendant Nos.8, 10 to 14 have contested the case by filing written statements admitting the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint. 13. The defendant Nos.8, 10 to 14 have contested the case by filing written statements admitting the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint. The written statement of the defendant Nos.8, 10 to 14 is not discussed elaborately because those defendants have admitted the relief and the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint. Defendants Nos.3 to 6 have also contested the suit and submitted a written statement denying the averment of the plaintiff in the plaint. According to the defendant Nos.3 to 6 on 19-05-1987 Haimabati Chakraborty, W/O. Late Nagendra Nath Chakraborty, grand-mother of the plaintiff during her lifetime transferred the lands described in Schedule 'C' of the plaint to Ashim Chakraborty, grand-son of Haimabati Chakraborty by Registered Sale Deed No.1521 Volume No.1- 1460 dated 19-05-1987 in exchange of promise that Haimabati Chakraborty would be taken care by Ashim Chakraborty till her death with the knowledge of the plaintiff and the defendants as the defendant No.2 is the attested witness of the Sale Deed. According to defendants Nos.3 to 6 Ashim Chakraborty died on 01-08- 2006 leaving behind his mother, defendant No.3 only as legal heir. So, the land mentioned in Schedule "C" was recorded in the Khatian No.1353 under Mouja - Uttar Chandrapur in the name of the defendant No.3 by mutation. As per law, Haimabati Chakraborty could transfer by the aforesaid Sale Deed to Ashim Chakraborty her 1/8th (one-eighth) share, i.e., 0.01 acres from Khatian No.432/3 present Plot No.1075 out of 0.08 acres and 0.04 acres from Khatian No.432/2 present Plot No.1086 out of 0.31 acres and 0.02 acres from Khatian No.432/1 of Plot No.1272 out of 0.17 acres and 0.01 acres from Khatian No.432/1 present Plot No.1767 out of 0.09 acres, 0.02 acres from Khatian No.432/1 present Plot No.1769 out of 0.18 acres and 0.01 acres from Khatian No.432/2 of present Plot No.1772 out of 0.10 acres and 0.01 acres from Khatian No.432/2 of present Plot No.1848 out of 0.08 acres and 0.01 acres from Khatian No.432/2 present Plot No.1849 out of 0.08 acres and 0.10 acres from Khatian No.432/1 present Plot No.616 out of 0.82 acres and 0.19 acres from Khatian No.432/1 present Plot No.992 out of 1.42 acres and 0.03 acres from Khatian No.432/1 of present Plot No.995 out of 0.24 acres. The excess lands transferred by Haimabati Chakraborty by the said Registered Sale Deed, according to the defendant Nos.3 to 6 will be made partitioned among the plaintiff and the defendants as per the ratio mentioned in Para-16 over 'A' Schedule land. According to the defendant Nos.3 to 6 after the transfer of share of land of Haimabati Chakraborty the remaining portion of land, i.e., 0.07 acres from Khatian No.432/3 and 0.027 acres from Khatian No.432/2, 0.15 acres from Khatian No.432/1, 0.09 acres from Khatian No.432/1 and 0.16 acres from Khatian No.432/1 and 0.09 acres from Khatian No.432/2, 0.07 acres from Khatian No.432/2, 0.72 acres from Khatian No.432/1, i.e., 1.23 acres from Khatian No.432/1 present Plot No.992 and 0.21 acres from Khatian No.432/1 present Plot No.995 will be made partition among the plaintiff and the defendants as mentioned in the plaint. As per the law, the remaining portion of the suit land as mentioned will be made partitioned among the plaintiff and the defendants as mentioned in the plaint. As per the following ratio 1/14 : 1/7 : 1/28 : 1/28 : 1/28 : 1/28 : 1/7 : 1/7 :1/35 : 1/35 : 1/35 : 1/35 : 1/35 : 1/14 respectively. According to the defendant, Nos.3 to 6 defendant No.3 has not illegally withdrawn and utilized the entire amount of compensation of Rs.47,880/- as awarded by the L.A. Department for the acquisition of joint property appertaining to Plot No.616/3225. Haimabati Chakraborty transferred 0.16 acres of land in Khatian No.432/1 of present Plot No.616 to Ashim Chakraborty by a Registered Sale Deed. As per law, she could only transfer her 1/8th (one-eighth) share over the undivided land, i.e., 0.10 acres to Ashim Chakraborty. Defendant No.3 received Rs.47,880/- for the acquisition of 0.16 acres of land as the land was recorded in her name. So, defendant No.3 is liable to return only Rs.17,955/- for the acquisition of access land of 0.06 acres. Defendant No.3 is to return the said amount of Rs.17,955/- to the plaintiff and the defendants which will be made partition as per the ratio among the plaintiff and the defendants as mentioned in Para-16 over 'A' Schedule land. So, defendant No.3 is liable to return only Rs.17,955/- for the acquisition of access land of 0.06 acres. Defendant No.3 is to return the said amount of Rs.17,955/- to the plaintiff and the defendants which will be made partition as per the ratio among the plaintiff and the defendants as mentioned in Para-16 over 'A' Schedule land. According to the defendants' award money for the acquisition of the remaining 0.66 acres lying before the L.A. Collector, Gomati District, Udaipur are to be made partition among the plaintiff and the defendants as per ratio as mentioned in Para- 16 over 'A' Schedule land. So, the L.A. Collector may be directed to pay the sum to the plaintiff and the defendants as per the ratio mentioned in Para-16 over 'A' Schedule land. Under the above facts and circumstances the defendant Nos.3 to 6 pray to make the partition of the suit land as stated in the written statement as per the ratio stated in the written statement among the plaintiff and the defendants. 14. The learned Trial Court out of pleadings of both sides framed the following issues:- '(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and nature? (ii) Whether the parties to the suit have any right, title and interest over the suit land? (iii) Whether the suit land has already been partitioned amicably? (iv) Whether the defendant No.3 is liable to pay 1/14th (one-fourteenth) share to the plaintiff from the compensation money received by her in connection with the Land Acquisition Department for acquisition of the plot No.616/3225? (v) Whether any other reliefs can be granted to the parties to the suit?' 15. Both the parties adduced both oral and documentary evidence. 16. After the conclusion of the hearing, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit in preliminary form with the following operative order:- 'In view of the above discussion and decision, it is hereby ordered that the suit for partition filed by the plaintiff is decreed on contest in preliminary form against the defendants. It is hereby declared that the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/14th (one fourteenth) share in undivided suit land and is entitled to get separate possession of the suit land. Defendant No.3 is directed to pay the plaintiff 1/14th (one fourteenth) share from the compensation money that the defendant No.3 solely received from the L.A. Department for acquisition of 616/325. It is hereby declared that the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/14th (one fourteenth) share in undivided suit land and is entitled to get separate possession of the suit land. Defendant No.3 is directed to pay the plaintiff 1/14th (one fourteenth) share from the compensation money that the defendant No.3 solely received from the L.A. Department for acquisition of 616/325. So, accordingly, the defendants are directed to make partition of the suit property as per quantum of the share portion of the plaintiff between themselves and the plaintiff as per the decree passed by this Court within one month from today, otherwise, plaintiff will have the liberty to get the share of the landed property to be partitioned by the Collector or any Deputy Collector, subordinate to the Collector or deputed by the Collector in this behalf in due course of time'. 17. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree, the appellants has filed this instant appeal and prayed for the following reliefs:- '(i) Admit the appeal condoning the delay; (ii) Issue notice upon the respondents; (iii) After hearing set aside the impugned judgment and decree and dismiss the suit; (iv) Grant cost in favour of the appellant; (v) Stay execution of the impugned decree till disposal of this appeal; (vi) Pass any other order/orders as the learned Court deems fit and proper.' 18. Heard Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 19. Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellants submitted that the learned trial Court has committed a mistake in appreciating the evidence on record holding that the gift deed No.1-1460 dated 19.05.1987 has not been proved. He further argued that the court below has not considered the gift deed though it is a registered document. He has pleaded that may be due to typographical mistake in the pleading, it is typed as 'sale deed' instead of 'gift deed'. When the court questioned him with regard to not taking any steps for carrying out the said amendment, there was no reply on behalf of the learned counsel. Further, when this court has asked the learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellants herein with regard to not taking any steps for examining the witnesses to the 'gift deed' in Court there was no answer. Further, when this court has asked the learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellants herein with regard to not taking any steps for examining the witnesses to the 'gift deed' in Court there was no answer. Further, when the Court asked the learned counsel that when the 1/8th property of the doner has not been partitioned by way of metes and bounds how she has executed the 'sale deed' or 'gift deed' by indicating the boundaries, there was no answer from the appellant. 20. Admittedly, the wife of Shri Nagendra Chakraborty, Smt. Haimabati Chakraborty who has executed the gift deed according to the defendant-appellants is the 1/8th shareholder and the said 'gift deed' which indicates the metes and bounds is not justified since the 1/8th share was not partitioned by way of metes and bounds. The witnesses to the 'gift deed' were not examined. In the pleading, the appellants proceeded on the analogy of 'sale deed', and Exhibit-8 is the 'gift deed' which has been marked. The pleadings and the documents have to go in consonance with each other. The appellants in pleadings cannot contend about the 'sale deed' and place before the Court 'gift deed'. The other contentions raised are also rejected. 21. In the above scenario, this court is of the opinion that the appellants have not approached this court with clean hands and in view of the above, the Judgment dated 09.04.2018 and decree dated 23.04.2018 passed by the learned Court below in TS(Partition)13 of 2015 is reasonable and just and needs no interference. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 22. Consequently, pending application(s), if any, stands closed.