PRAKASH CHANDRA ROY Vs. PRABHAT CHANDRA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-6-1984 passed by Sri Dinefch Narain Pathak, Special Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, in Partition Suit No. 143 of 1982, by which the learned trial court had dismissed the suit with contest but without cost.

(2.) The plaintiffs-appellants had filed this suit for partition. The case of the plaintiffs, in short, is that both the parties to the suit are governed by Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law in the matter of succession and inheritance. From the genealogical table given as Schedule A to the plaint it would appear that one Prafullo Chandra Roy was the common ancestor. He had three sons and two daughters. Defendant No. 1 Prabodh Chandra Roy is one of his sons. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are his daughters. They figure as Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in this appeal. The plaintiffs Prakash Chandra Roy and Prabodh Chandra Roy the husband of plaintiff No. 2 were also his sons. Plaintiff No. 3 is the daughter of Prabodh Chandra Roy and Defendant No. 4 is his another daughter.

(3.) The further case of the plaintiffs is that Prafullo Chandra Roy by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated 28-9-1940 acquired property fully and particularly described in Schedule B of the plaint. At the time of the purchase the land in question was lying vacant and subsquently Prafullo Chandra Roy constructed a house over the same from his personal fund. Prafullo Chandra Roy died in May, 1960 leaving behind his heirs as mentioned above. One of bis sons Prabodh C handra Roy died in the year, 1937 and Plaintiff No. 2 is his widow while Plaintiff No. 3 is his daughter. The parties were joint in possession of the suit property. Plaintiff No. 1 had l/5th interest in the suit property. Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 and the proforma defendant No. 4 also had l/5th interest in the undivided suit property. Since the number of family members of the plaintiff went on increasing they demanded partition in joint possession of the suit property and since Defendant No. 1 did not agree to it the suit was brought for partition of the suit properly and for drawing up a preliminary and final degree in favour of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant for the allotment of their 2/5th interest in the suit property.