ARJUNA PRASAD Vs. MOHAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant-appellant-appellant has filed this second appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.1.2000 passed by learned 10 th Addl. District Judge, Saran at Chapra in title appeal No.82 of 1994 / 32 of 1997 whereby the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial Court Judgment and Decree dated 8.7.1994 passed by Sub Judge Ist, Chapra in partition suit No.18 of 1988.

(2.) THE plaintiff respondent filed the aforesaid suit claiming half share in the suit property. The plaintiff's case in short is that one Tapsi Sah was the common ancestor of the parties. He had 5 sons, namely, Narain Sah, Lakshmi Sah, Raidas Sah, Bisheshwar Sah, Ishwari Sah. Narain Sah, Lakshmi Sah and Raidas Sah died issueless. The plaintiff is the grand son of Ishwari Sah whereas defendant No.1 was grand son of Bisheshwar Sah. There has been no partition of the suit land. The further case is that Raidas Sah died unmarried. Narain Sah died in the year 1935. His wife Pan Kuer had pre deceased Naraian Sah. Lakshmi Sah died in 1936 leaving behind his widow Radhika. Bisheweshwar died prior to Lakshmi Sah. He had a son Ram Prasad who had predeceased his father leaving behind the defendant No.1. Ishwari Sah died after Lakshmi leaving behind two sons namely, Hanuman and Sarjug. Sarjug died issueless. Hanuman died in 1955 leaving behind the plaintiff. Radhika widow of Lakshmi died 40-45 years ago. When Radhika died Hanuman and Ganga were alive and, therefore, both of them inherited the suit property having half and half share. The plaintiff and defendants are living in jointness. There is unity of title and possession.

(3.) HOLDING No.611 was recorded in the name of Bisheshwar Sah, the grand father of defendant No.1 and the property which was sold to Lakshmi Sah by Bisheshwar Sah was recorded in the name of Radhika Devi being holding No.610. Holding No.610 is re-numbered as 745 whereas holding No.611 is re-numbered as 746 and the suit has been filed for partition of both the holdings by the plaintiff on simple allegation that the property is joint family property and there is no partition between the 5 sons of Tapsi.