JUDGMENT : (Sugato Majumdar, J.) : 1. The instant suit was filed for partition and administration of the estate. 2. There were five suit properties initially. These properties were: 1. 8B, Nabin Pal Lane, Kolkata; 2. 16, Beniatola Lane, Kolkata; 3. 17, Beniatola Lane, Kolkata; 4. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Kolkata; 5. 31, College Row, Kolkata. 3. Preliminary decree of the suit was passed by a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court on 8th August, 1994. In terms of the preliminary decree the properties located at premises no. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Kolkata and 31, College Row, Kolkata were kept outside the ambit of the present suit. This Court decided that, so for as the other three properties are concerned, the original Plaintiffs are jointly entitled to 50% of the share of these properties and the original Defendants are jointly entitled to rest of the 50% of these properties. An appeal was preferred. On appeal against the said preliminary decree, the Division Bench remanded the matter for fresh trial in respect of the properties located at premises no. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Kolkata and 31, College Row, Kolkata. But the Division Bench upheld the preliminary decree so far as the properties located at premises no. 8B, Nabin Pal Lane, Kolklata; 16, Beniatola Lane, Kolkata and 17, Beniatola Lane, Kolkata are concerned. In terms of the said preliminary decree the Co-Ordinate Bench directed to appoint Partition Commissioner for partition in respect of the last mentioned three properties. 4. During pendency, the original Plaintiffs did not proceed with the suit for which then Defendant No.1,3,5 and 6 were transposed as Plaintiffs and other Defendants were arrayed as Defendant no.2(a), 2(b) and 3. 5. The suit was heard on remand and preliminary decree was passed in terms of the judgment dated 24th February, 2023. In terms of the later preliminary decree dated 24th February, 2023, again this Court decided that the properties located at premises no. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Kolkata and 31, College Row, Kolkata are not joint properties for which these properties should not be subject to partition in the present suit. These two properties were kept outside the ambit of the present suit. 6. Partition Commissioner had submitted her report in terms of the previous preliminary decree dated 8th August, 1994. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street, Kolkata and 31, College Row, Kolkata are not joint properties for which these properties should not be subject to partition in the present suit. These two properties were kept outside the ambit of the present suit. 6. Partition Commissioner had submitted her report in terms of the previous preliminary decree dated 8th August, 1994. Since, the said preliminary decree was not wholly set aside by the Division Bench and upheld the findings in respect of the other three properties, appointment of the Partition Commissioner as well as proceeding with partition of the properties located at premises no. 8B, Nabin Pal Lane, Kolklata; 16, Beniatola Lane, Kolkata and 17, Beniatola Lane, Kolkata by metes and bounds was not impugned. The Partition Commissioner, after submission of the report was examined by the Court and the Report of the Partition Commissioner was marked as Ext.18. 7. Now this Court passed the final judgement in this suit for partition based on the Report of the Partition Commissioner, marked as Ext.18, in terms of the following directions: 1. In the original preliminary decree dated 8th August, 1994 shares of the parties were declared as: The Plaintiffs jointly : 50% The Defendants jointly : 50% Thereafter the parties were transposed in terms of order(s) of this Court. Hence, it is directed that in conformity with the preliminary decree dated 8th August, 1994, the shares of the parties shall be as follow in respect of properties located at premises no. 8B, Nabin Pal Lane, Kolklata; 16, Beniatola Lane, Kolkata and 17, Beniatola Lane, Kolkata : Original Plaintiffs (presently transposed Defendant No.4,5,6,7). : 50% Original Defendants (presently the transposed Plaintiffs and the transposed Defendants 2(a), 2(b) and 3). : 50% Shares of the parties are more specified as follows, as submitted by the Learned Counsel Mr. Paul Chowdhury: No. Parties to the suit Share of suit premises No. 8B, Nabin Pal Lane, Kolkata – 9 of the parties. Share of Suit premises Nos. 16 & 17, Beniatola Lane, Kolkata – 9 to the parties Share of suit premises Nos. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street & 31, College Row, Kolkata – 9 to the parties 1 Madhu Sudan Dutt, 8.33% 10% 16.66% 2 Ashim Kumar Dutt, 8.33% 10% 16.66% 3 Arup Kumar Dutt, 8.33% 10% 16.66% 4 Sm. Anjali Dawn. Share of Suit premises Nos. 16 & 17, Beniatola Lane, Kolkata – 9 to the parties Share of suit premises Nos. 26, Sitaram Ghosh Street & 31, College Row, Kolkata – 9 to the parties 1 Madhu Sudan Dutt, 8.33% 10% 16.66% 2 Ashim Kumar Dutt, 8.33% 10% 16.66% 3 Arup Kumar Dutt, 8.33% 10% 16.66% 4 Sm. Anjali Dawn. 8.33% 16.66% 2(a) Smt. Malabika Dutta, 4.16 ½ % 5% 8.33% 2(b) Smt. Ananya Dutta, 4.16 ½ % 5% 8.33% 3 Arun Kumar Dutt, 8.33% 10% 16.66% 4(a) Sm. Anuradha Dutta, 4.16 ½ % 4.16 ½ % 4(b) Subhajit Dutta, 4.16 ½ % 4.16 ½ % 44(c) Smt. Sujata Dutta, 4.16 ½ % 4.16 ½ % 4(d) Smt. Ajanta Saha, 4.16 ½ % 4.16 ½ % 5 Anadinath Dutta, 16.66% 16.66% 6 Sumit Kumar Dutta, 8.33% 8.33% 7 Miss. Barnasree Dutta. 8.33% 8.33% Total 100% (Approx) 100% (Approx) 100% (Approx) 2. So far as the properties located at premises no. 16 & 17 Beniatola Lane, Kolkata is concerned, it is stated in the Partition Commissioner’s Report that these two properties are fully tenanted. As a result, these two properties cannot be partitioned by metes and bounds. Therefore, as suggested in the Report of the Partition Commissioner, all profits, income, usufructs as well as the expenses, liabilities and payment of outgoings including the cost of repairing, renovations, shall be shared and born by the parties in proportions as mentioned in Para. 1 above. 3. i) So far as the property located at the premises no. 8B, Nabin Pal Lane, Kolkata is concerned, the same shall be partitioned equally in two lots namely Lot – “A” and Lot – “B”, as shown and delineated in the map annexed to the Report of the Partition Commissioner. The original Plaintiffs (presently transposed Defendant No.4,5,6,7) shall be entitled to the part and parcel demarcated as Lot – “B” and the original Defendants (presently the transposed Plaintiffs and the transposed Defendants 2(a), 2(b) and 3) shall be entitled to the part and parcel demarcated as Lot – “A”. ii) In order to equalise shares, as suggested in the Report of the Partition Commissioner, the original Defendants (presently the transposed Plaintiffs and the transposed Defendants 2(a), 2(b) and 3) shall pay to the original Plaintiffs (presently transposed Defendant No.4,5,6,7) owelty money of Rs. ii) In order to equalise shares, as suggested in the Report of the Partition Commissioner, the original Defendants (presently the transposed Plaintiffs and the transposed Defendants 2(a), 2(b) and 3) shall pay to the original Plaintiffs (presently transposed Defendant No.4,5,6,7) owelty money of Rs. 28, 031.00p within four months of drawing up the decree, if not paid a priori. In case of default in payment the outstanding amount shall carry interest at a rate of 12% per annum till payment, calculating from the date of the decree. Recovery shall be made by way of execution of the decree. iii) The parties shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession all the part of the portions not allotted to them to the other party to whom that portion is allotted. To clarify, all the original Plaintiffs shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession of plot ‘A’ property to the original Defendants and the original Defendants shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession of plot ‘B’ to the original Plaintiffs. This is to be done within four months from the date of decree in case of default of which the defaulting party shall be liable to pay damages at a rate of Rs. 50/- per day till recovery without prejudiced to other rights and entitlements, recovery of possession may be made by way of execution of this decree against the defaulting party. 4. The parties shall execute deed of mutual conveyance within a period of four months from the date of decree. 5. Mr. Jayanta Banerjee has been appointed as a Learned Receiver in respect of premises No. 16 & 17 Beniatola Lane, Kolkata in terms of Order dated 13.11.1980 passed by this Court. The Learned Receiver has filed statement of accounts dated 05.04.2023. A bank account is maintained in Punjab National Bank, High Court Branch being current Account No. 0091050001734. It is stated in the report that since his appointment as Receiver, rents in respect of premises no. 16& 17 Beniatola Lane, Kolkata had been collected and deposited in the said account after payment of various outgoings expenses and charges. Outgoings including outstanding statutory liabilities and electricity charges in respect of the premises no. 8B, Nabin Pal Lane, Kolkata was also paid out of the said accounts. Since income and expenses in respect of the premises no. 16& 17 Beniatola Lane, Kolkata had been collected and deposited in the said account after payment of various outgoings expenses and charges. Outgoings including outstanding statutory liabilities and electricity charges in respect of the premises no. 8B, Nabin Pal Lane, Kolkata was also paid out of the said accounts. Since income and expenses in respect of the premises no. 16 & 17 Beniatola Lane, Kolkata are deposited and paid in this account namely current account no. 0091050001734 maintained in Punjab National Bank, High Court Branch and since these two premises could not be made partitioned by metes and bounds. The authorized persons of the Plaintiff and the Defendants shall operate this account henceforth and the bank shall record their names henceforth. The Learned Receiver Mr. Banerjee shall be discharged thereafter. His outstanding remuneration shall be paid out of the said account, if any. No payment henceforth shall be paid from this account or no deposit in the said account shall be made in respect of the premises no. 8B, Nabin Pal Lane, Kolkata. The parties are at liberty to close the account also. The Learned Receiver Mr. Banerjee shall finish his tasks, so directed above, within two months from the date of the decree. 6. The parties shall apply to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for mutation of their names and the authorities of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation shall act accordingly in substitution of name of the existing Receivers. 7. Mr. Zafar Ahmed was appointed as Receiver in respect of premises no. 26 Sitaram Ghosh Street, Kolkata and 31, College Row, Kolkata. In terms of the preliminary decree dated 24.02.2023 these two properties were kept outside the ambit of this suit. There is a saving bank account bearing no. 0091010360287 maintained in Punjab National Bank, High Court Branch. The said account, on discharge of the Learned Receiver shall be in the name of the owners of the said premises or their authorized representatives who will operate the account thereafter or be at liberty to close the bank account. All the documents of the said account shall be handed over by the Learned Receiver to the authorised or proper person. The fixed deposit shall be withdrawn and the withdrawn amount shall be deposited in the savings bank account number 0091010360287 maintained in Punjab National Bank, High Court Branch. All the documents of the said account shall be handed over by the Learned Receiver to the authorised or proper person. The fixed deposit shall be withdrawn and the withdrawn amount shall be deposited in the savings bank account number 0091010360287 maintained in Punjab National Bank, High Court Branch. Any outstanding remuneration of the Learned Receiver shall be adjusted from the fixed deposit account. All these exercises shall be done within two months from the date of decree. Thereafter, Mr. Ahmed shall stand discharged. The instant suit stands disposed of. 8. Original exhibits be returned to the parties concerned on furnishing authenticated copies thereof and on undertaking to furnish the originals as and when required. Let the decree be drawn up.