BUDHIA MANDAL Vs. RAGHU MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by defendants 1, 3 ,and 4 and arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff (Respondent No. 1) for partition of the plaint A and B Schedule properties into three equal shares and for recovery of possession of one such share together with mesne profits from 1956. The following genealogical table will show the relationship between the parties. the relationship between the parties.

(2.) IT is the plaintiff's case that his father Gandua Mandal died long ago leaving behind him his widow, three sons, and two daughters. He also left behind him a residential house and about 8 acres of land besides cash and other moveables. The plaintiff and his two brothers used to go to Burma and earned substantial sums of money. From out of the money so earned and the income from the joint family lands, new properties were being acquired in the name of defendant No. 1 who being the eldest of three brothers was the Karta of the joint family. Thus, in course of time, properties mentioned in plaints A and B schedules were acquired. As defendant No. 1 had no son of his own, he had adopted Dandia (defendant No. 2) the son of the plaintiff. About 11 years before the institution of the suit, the three brothers began to have separate messing but the properties remained joint. Some time thereafter, Mangulu died leaving behind him his widow Jhata (defendant No. 6) and a son Kalu. Kalu subsequently died leaving behind him his widow Khalli (defendant No. 7). Sometime in the year 1956, the plaintiff demanded partition by metes and bounds of the joint family properties but being instigated by his daughter defendant No. 4 and her husband, defendant No. 1 refused to partition all the joint family properties claiming most of them as his self-acquisitions. Since 1956, he also failed to give to the plaintiff his share of produce from the joint family properties, consequently the plaintiff was obliged to file the suit for partition. Defendants 8 to 18 were added as parties to the suit as they are alienees of some of the joint family properties from defendant No. 1. IT is also alleged in the plaint that certain unauthorised alienations of joint family properties have also been made in favour of defendants 3 and 4 by defendant No. 1.

(3.) THE result, therefore, would be that the properties covered by Exhibits B, B-1, B-3 and B-6 should be excluded from partition and the rest of the properties covered by Schedules 'A' and 'B' should be divided into three equal shares and one such share allotted to the plaintiff, one share to defendant No. 1 and the remaining share to defendant No. 6. It is conceded that defendant No. 7 by virtue of her remarriage is not entitled to any share in the suit properties. While making the partition, the properties covered by Ext. B-2 should be formally allotted to the share of defendant No. 1 to enable defendant No. 4 to enjoy the property. THE appeal filed by defendants 1, 3 and 4 would succeed only to the extent indicated above.