FAKLI DEVI Vs. BUDHRAM MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs-appellants have filed this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court against the judgment and decree dated 31-1-1989, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23-12-1975, passed by the 5th Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, in Partition Suit No. 382/200 of 1968/1974 dismissing the suit for partition.

(2.) Admittedly, both the parties are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and their ancestor was one Raiya Mahto, who had two sons, namely, Chaitan and Dalu. Original Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 and defendants Nos. 1 to 3 belong to the branch of Chaitan and defendants Nos. 4 to 15 belong to the branch of Dalu.

(3.) According to the plaintiffs, families of both the branches of Chaitan and Dalu were joint and they possessed ancestral properties described at the foot of the plaint. Out of the nucleus, the joint family acquired properties in the name of one or the other members of the family. In course of time, the family became large and as such they separated and are living separately and for convenience, they also cultivated certain lands separately, but there was no partition by metes and bounds according to the shares of each member of the branches. Chaitan died in 1942 leaving behind his three sons, namely, Asaram, Pocha and Jungle. Asaram died on 1954 leaving behind a widow, who also died. Asaram's son Brijnath also died leaving behind his widow Sakhia (D.W. 2) and his daughter Jaimani (D.W. 3). Another son of Asaram, Budhram is D.W. 1. The share of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 is 5 annas 5 paise in the entire property, 2 annas 8 paise belonged to defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and the remaining half belonged to defendants Nos. 4 to 15 representing the branch of Dalu. There was difficulty in joint cultivation and as such a prayer was made by the plaintiffs for partition. When the said request was not acceded to by the defendants, the suit for partition was filed.