KAROO SINGH Vs. UJAGIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, Gaya, whereby he decreed in part the plaintiffs' suit for partition. He held that the properties standing in the name of defendant 7, Musammat Kausala Kuer, and properties standing in the name of defendant 1, Ujagir Singh, were not properties which could be the subject of partition as these properties belonged to Kausala Kuer and Ujagir Singh, respectively. A cross-objection has also been filed against the decision of the Subordinate Judge decreeing in part the plaintiffs' suit for partition. The cross-objection, however, was not pressed before us by Mr. De, appearing for the respondents in the appeal. So far as the appeal by the plaintiffs is concerned, it is confined only with respect to the decision of the Subordinate Judge concerning the properties standing in the name of Musammat, Kausala Kuer, defendant 7 and Ujagir Singh, defendant 1. There was one other matter argued, namely, as to whether the order of the Subordinate Judge allowing maintenance to the extent of one-fourth share to defendant 7 was permissible and as to whether the same could be made a charge on the joint family properties.

(2.) ONE Ramanugrah Singh had four sons, Gobardhan Singh, Bhuletan Singh, Karu Singh and Sital Singh. The plaintiffs are Karu Singh along with his son plaintiff 2. Defendant 3 is the son of Bhuletan Singh and defendant 5 is the son of defendant 3. Gobardhan Singh had two sons, defendant 1 and defendant 2. The son of defendant 1 is defendant 4 and the son of defendant 2 is defendant 6. Sital singh was married to Musammat Kausala Kuer, and within three to four years of his marriage he died issue-less leaving behind Kaupala Kuer a widow. Kausala Kuer is defendant 7.

(3.) I agree.