GOPABANDHU Vs. TULASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 arises out of a final decree for partition.

(2.) Plaintiff and defendant No. 3 are co-widows of Krushna Behera, brother of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 is the son of defendant No. 1. The suit was for recovery of possession and mesne profits from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 of the properties mentioned in Schedules 'A', 'B' and 'C' of the plaint for the benefit of plaintiff and her co-widow, defendant No. 3.

(3.) Plaintiffs case, in short, was that there was partition between her husband and his brother, defendant No. 1, in which Schedule 'A' properties fell to the former's share. Thereafter, the former acquired some properties as mentioned in the plaint. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were forcibly amalgamating those properties with their lands for which the suit had to be filed. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, while not disputing the previous partition and self acquisition of some of the properties by the husband of the plaintiff, disputed the correctness of the Schedules. In their written statement the properties were described in a Schedule.