ANAR KUMARI Vs. JAMUNA PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by certificate, stems from a suit for partition instituted by the widow of a Hindu coparcener who set up a specific case that her husband, who had died in 1930, was entitled to onesixth share in the joint family properties since there had been an earlier partition in 1928.

(2.) One Rambhajoo Singh, first defendant (now deceased) had two wives. By the first wife he had two sons - the second wife he had three sons, the late husband of the plaintiff (Rameshwar Prasad Singh) and fourth and fifth defendants. The plaintiff, the widow of Rameshwar Prasad, set up the case that she was entitled to a widow's estate in her husband's share, which she stated, was one-sixth of the entire family properties, based on her case of a partition in 1928. The defendants contested the case of partition in 1928 and set up a later partition in 1936. If Rameshwar Prasad died in 1930 and there was no prior partition, the present plaintiff would not be entitled to a share and suit would have had to be dismissed. Of course, a minor matter falls to be noticed at this stage. The common ancestor, Rambhajoo Singh, the first defendant, died pendente lite and on that basis under the Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiff, in any case, would be entitled to 1/25th share in the family properties. This is not contested by the other side.

(3.) Any way, the partition of 1928 has been disbelieved by both the courts below and we are not dispossed to reopen the concurrent finding. The inevitable result flowing from this conclusion would have been that the plaintiff would have had to rest content with 1/25th share in the family properties as decreed by the High Court and also a claim for maintenance as held in the judgment of the High Court.