LAWS(ALL)-1982-1-64

JAGDISH PRASAD AND ORS. Vs. MAULESHWAR AND ORS.

Decided On January 07, 1982
Jagdish Prasad And Ors. Appellant
V/S
Mauleshwar And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs Second Appeal in a suit for partition and separate possession, over the plaintiffs' share in a notice with the land appurtenant thereto and for damages for cutting away the crops over the agricultural land in suit and the trees from the other land in suit. Joint possession over the agricultural land was also claimed, Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3, who are also appellants Nos. t to 3, are purchasers under a sale -deed Dt. the 14th Sept., 1964 of the shares in the property in suit of Ram Sureman, Ram Ujagar and Ram Milan who are the sons of Smt. Partapa. She also joined in the sale -deed as a vendor. Plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 5, of whom plaintiff No. 4 died during the pendency of the suit and is now represented by the appellants Nos. 4 to 8 and 10 to .12, and the plaintiff No. 5 is appellant No. 9, are the purchasers under a sale deed dated the 4th Feb., 1966 of the share in the property in suit of Shesh Chandra son of Smt, Dulari. The sixth plaintiff, who is appellant No. 13, is the purchaser under a sale -deed dated the 24th February, 1965 of the share of Chandra Kant son of Smt Mishara. Smt, Mishara, Smt. Dulari and Smt. Partapa were sisters being the daughters of Jamuna Prasad by his first wife Smt, Surja Devi, Defendants NOS. 1 to 5 are the purchasers of the share of Bindbashi son of Smt. Dhupa who was the daughter of Jamuna Prasad by his second wife Smt. Sona Devi, Jamuna Prasad had two more daughters by his second wife Smt, Sona Devi namely Smt. Gunjan and Smt. Ram Sanwari, Their respective sons Budh Sagar and Jai Prakash are defendants Nos. 6 and 10 and also respondents Nos. 6 and 10 respectively.

(2.) The relationship of the parties would be clear from the following pedigree: - -

(3.) Of the daughters' sons of Jamuna Prasad, Ram Chandra son of Smt. Dulari, who was not mentioned so far, was impleaded as defendant No. 9 and is also respondent No. 9 in this Court.