BASANT Vs. YASHODA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this plaintiffs' second appeal is as under: -

(2.) The following genealogical tree will demonstrate the relationship between the parties: - <IMG border=1 align=center src="http://www.indialawlibrary.com\images\23112018-160.jpg">

(3.) The property mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint was originally held by Late Shri Bhandari. The plaintiffs are great grand-sons of Bhandari, whereas defendant No.1 is son's wife and defendant No.2 is grand-daughter of Shri Bhandari. The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of possession and permanent injunction stating inter alia that they be declared owners of the property mentioned in Schedule A, as the properties mentioned in Schedule A & Schedule B were recorded in the name of Bhandari and after death of Bhandari, Adhin Das grand-father of the plaintiffs and Manjatan grand-father of defendant No.2 have partitioned the properties described in Schedule A & B and the property mentioned in Schedule A has fallen in the share of Adhin Das, whereas the property mentioned in Schedule B has fallen in the share of Manjatan, therefore, defendant No.2 has no title over the property described Schedule A, which was opposed by defendant No.2 by filing written statement stating inter alia that the property mentioned in Schedule A was the ancestral property of the plaintiffs & the defendants which was recorded in the name of Bhandari and after the death of Bhandari, the plaintiffs & the defendants have succeeded the property jointly, and the property mentioned in Schedule B was the self-acquired property of Manjatan.