VIDYA DEVI Vs. LALITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants have filed the present first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 08.04.1980 passed by Sri Raj Kumar Tuli, the learned 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge, Bettiah in Title Suit No. 276 of 1972/ 342 of 1974 dismissing the plaintiffs appellants' suit for partition to the extent of 1/3rd share.

(2.) THE plaintiffs appellants filed the aforesaid Title Suit No. 267 of 1972/ 342 of 1974 claiming partition to the extent of 1/3rd share on the ground that the suit property belonged to their ancestor Kewal Mahto, who died leaving behind Darbari Mahto, Deodutt Mahto, Jadu Mahto and Raghunandan Mahto. THEse brothers died in the state of jointness. Deodutt Mahto died issueless. THE parties were separate in mess and cultivation according to their convenience since about 30 - 35 years before but there had been no partition by metes and bounds. Recently the plaintiff demanded partition of the entire property measuring about 139 bighas of land but the defendants refused. THE plaintiffs accordingly, claimed 1/3rd share in the suit property. According to the plaintiffs they represent branch of Raghunandan Mahto, whereas the defendants represent the branch of Darbari Mahto and Jadu Mahto. It is stated that the co-sharers have transferred some of the suit lands, therefore, those lands may be allotted to their respective takhtas.

(3.) THE learned counsel next submitted that if there was partition in the year 1919 then there should have been immediate steps taken by the parties for getting their names mutated but in the present case for the first time the mutation application was filed in the year 1962. This mutation application was also filed forging the signatures of different co-sharers and, therefore, co-sharers filed objection which are Ext.6 series stating that there had been no partition between the parties and the applications have been filed forging their signatures. THE learned court below without considering all these aspects of the matter has disbelieved the case of plaintiffs. On these grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside and the plaintiffs' suit for partition be decreed.