RAMDEO JHA Vs. NARENDRA NARAYAN MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by defendants first party is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Third Court, Bhagalpur, affirming those of Additional Subordinate Judge of Madhipura, in a suit for partition of 45 bighas of land.

(2.) Originally the property in suit belonged to one Jhaman Jha who left two sons namely, Lalit Jha and Ranglal Jha. Lalit had a son, named Genalal Jha who died leaving behind a widow, named Musst. Murti (defendant No. 4) -- defendant second party. Ranglal had two sons, namely Gudar Jha and Tofalal Jha, Gudar died leaving behind a widow, named Musammat Janmani who also died leaving behind three daughters, namely, Mosammat Parmesh' wan (defendant No. 6) Jagdamba Devi (defendant No. 5) and Kaushalya Devi (defendant No. 7) Tofalal died leaving a son named Basdeo Jha, who also died leaving a son, Jagdish Jha. Jagdish Jha died leaving a widow, Gunjeshwari Devi (Sic.) (defendant No. 3) and two sons Ramdeo Jha and Phulkant Jha defendants (Nos. 1 and 2). These three defendants (Nos. 1 to 3) were defendants first party, and they are the appellants in this court. Defendants Nos. 5 and 5 constituted defendants third party. Defendant No. 7 alone constituted defendant fourth party. Defendants Nos. 8 to 12, who constituted defendants fifth party are purchasers from some of the defendants other than defendants first party, Genalal died sometime before 1910. Mosst Janmani died more than 37 years before the institution of the suit. The sole plaintiff, who is respondent No. 1 in this court, purchased some interest in the suit, property under a registered sale deed dated the 16th August 1956 executed by defendants 5 and 6, two of the daughters cf Gudar Jha. The case of the plaintiff is that there was separation amongst Gudar, Genalal and Tofalal and each of them used to cultivate specific plots of land for convenience, though there was no partition by metes and bounds. Though defendants Nos. 5 to 7 were in law to inherit the interest of Gudar Jha, defendant No. 7 gave up her claim to the property on account of the fact that she did not meet the expenses, incurred in the Sradh of Gudar or his widow, and, therefore, it is said, only defendants 5 and 6 inherited the interest of Gudar Jha, which was -/4/- annas in the family properties. This interest was purchased by the plaintiff and he claimed partition of the same in the suit, out of which the present appeal arises.

(3.) The claim, of the plaintiff was really contested by defendants first party only. They denied the alleged separation and asserted that there was no separation amongst any of the descendants of Jhaman Jha. On the other hand, they asserted that they got all the properties by the law of survivorship after the death of Genaial, Gudar and Tofalal. It was further asserted that even if defendants 5 and 6 had any interest in the property in suit, the same was extinguished by adverse possession for more than twelve years. The allegation that defendants 5 and 6 got th& interest of defendant No. 7 (Kaushalya Devi) was also denied. The sale deed in favour cf defendants fifth party were also challenged by these defendants. Some of the other defendants supported the case of the plaintiff, while some supported the case of defendants first, party.