SHAMBHOONATBSINHA Vs. RAMCHANDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -These appeals by the plaintiffs and defendant No. 3 arise out of a suit for partition. They have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The common ancestor of the parties Baijnath Lal had five sons Darshan Lal, Shep Prasad Lal, Surjan Lal, Bhagwati Sahai and Mathura Prasad. The plaintiffs represent the branch of Mathura Prasad, who in fact, was the original plaintiff but died sometime after the institution of the suit. Defendent Nos 1 and 2 represent the branch of Darshan Lal. There is a head on controversy about the parentage of defendant No. 3 Radha Rani, since dead. According to defendant Nos. 1 and 2, she was the daughter of Bhagwati Sahai while according to the plaintiffs, Bhagwati Sahai died issueless and she was the daughter of Sheo Prasad Lal.

(3.) According to the plaintiffs' case, Bhagwati Sahai died in state of jointness with his four brothers. There was partition in the family in 1932. Surjan Lal and Mathura Prasad got 1/4 share each in the joint- family properties. Darshan Lal and Sheo Prasad Lal, however, decided to live together, perhaps, because their wives were full sisters. They together got the rest 1/2 share. According to the plaintiffs, they constituted a joint family themselves. According to the plaintiffs further, the items of property detailed in Schedule I of the plaint which are the suit properties were left joint between the parties for the sake of convenience. It is said that Shep Prasad Lal and Darshan Lal too separated in 1934. Sheo Prasad Lal is said to have died in 1942 leaving behind his widow Mandodari Kuer and Radha Rani defendent No. 3. Mandodari Kuer came in possession of the estate of Shep Prasad. After her death in 1957, defendent No. 3 being her only heir inherited the property. According to the plaintiffs, Mathura Prasad had in the meantime purchased the entire l/4th share of Surjan Lal under sale deed dated 12-9-47 and thus his share in joint-family property became half. They experienced inconvenience in joint possession and management of the suit property and in the circumstances instituted the suit claiming 1/2 share in the property. The rest half, according to them, belongs to equally to Darshan Lai and defendants 1 and 2 on the one hand and defendants 2 and 3 on the other.