NANDA ROUT Vs. BAISHNAB CHARAN ROUT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHANDRU had four sons -Judhistir, Basu, Shiba and Baraju. Plaintiffs are the Sons of Baraju. Defendants represent the three other branches. The suit was for partition of the ancestral properties by metes and bounds. In the plaint itself, there is an averment that the four sons of Chandru were separate and in separate possession of different portions of the suit properties for the sake of convenience. Defendants 6 and 7 supported Plaintiff 's case. The main contest is that the disputed properties were partitioned by metes and bounds amongst the four branches long before the settlement of 1322 V.S. (1915 A.D.) Defendant No. 1 claimed holding No. 12 as the self -acquired, property of Judhisthir. Both the Courts below concurrently found that there was no partition by meter and bounds and that holding No. 12 was not the self -acquired property of Judhisthir. The second appeal is against the confirming judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kenosha.

(2.) MR . Mohapatra advanced two contentions -

(3.) THE second contention is that the Defendants have discharged the onus and on the materials on record, the Courts below should have held that there was a partition by metes and bounds.