CHANDO MAHTAIN Vs. KHUBLAL MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's suit was dismissed on the ground that the widow of his brother's son was not made a party in the suit. His appeal before the lower appellate court was also dismissed on the same ground. The Pre-sent appellants are the heirs of the plain tiff, since dead,

(2.) One Hari Mahto had three sons, namely, Dilo Mahto (plaintiff), Khudu Mahto and Tulsi Mahto. The defendant-respondents are the sons of Khudu Mahto who is dead. Tulshi Mahto died leaving behind a son Nanku Mahto in 1356 fasli. Nanku Mahto also died sometimes in the year 1960 leaving behind his widow named Rukmini Devi, According to the plaintiff the three sons of Hari Mahto separated in mess and business long time back but jointly cultivated their lands until 4-4-1959 when there was an amicable partition by metes and bounds of the ancestral properties between the plaintiff, the defendants and Nanku Mahto. The plaintiff claimed that on the death of Nanku Mahto in 1960 he had inherited the share of Nanku Mahto as his sole surviving legal heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to the exclusion of the defendants. It was alleged that the defendants had dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit lands hence the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

(3.) According to the defendants there was no partition as alleged by the plaintiff-appellant. Tulshi Mahto died in a state of jointness with the defendants and in 1959 Dilo Mahto the plaintiff got certain documents fabricated to show separation between himself and the contesting defendants. The defendants claimed that Nanku Mahto had died in a state of jointness with them, therefore, Nanku's interest in the joint family properties devolved upon them by survivorship. Defendants' further objection was that Nanku Mahto had been married to Rukmmi Devi who had remarried after the death of Nanku Mahto in 1960 with one Chandar Mahto and this Rukmini Devi not being made a party in the suit, the suit was not maintainable.