BISAUHA SINGH Vs. BALDAU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal preferred by defendants No.1 to 4 was admitted for hearing by formulating the following substantial question of law: -

(2.) The following genealogical tree would demonstrate the relationship among the parties herein: -

(3.) Defendants No.1 to 4 filed their joint written statement stating inter alia that during the lifetime of Bhima Singh - their father, the plaintiff separated after taking partition of his share and at that time, coparcenary of Bhima Singh - defendants No.1 & 2 was in existence and thereafter, defendants No.3 & 4 also joined the said coparcenary as they were born later and as such, the coparcenary consisted of Bhima Singh and defendants No.1 to 4. Since the plaintiff had already separated from the coparcenary by taking partial partition of his share, therefore, he is no longer member of the coparcenary and as such, his name has rightly been not entered in the revenue records vide order dtd. 29/10/1975 on suit tank and after death of their father, defendants No.1 to 4 have inherited the property by inheritance including the suit tank, as such, the suit deserves to be dismissed.