DEONATH SHRIVASTAVA Vs. MOSTT GAITRI SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19-3-1990 passed by Sri Ram Kishore Singh, District Judge, Katihar, in Title Appeal No. 15 of 1998 affirming the judgment and decree dated 12-8-1988 pas,sed by Sri Ram Narain Singh Sub-Ordinate Judge, Katihar, in Title Suit No. 43 of 1986.

(2.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree the defendants- appellants have preferred this appeal.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are as follows : The plaintiff-respondent, namely, Most. Gayatri Srivastava filed a suit before the sub-Judge, Katihar, against the defendants appellants for partition of the suit land with respect to her share. The suit was numbered as Title Suit No. 43 of 1986. The case of the plaintiff was that Mahadeo Lal was the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.2. He was working in the police department and out of his earning he acquired considerable properties in his own name as well as in the name of his wife Smt. Khiroda Devi, who was originally defendant No.1. She had no income of her own. The said Mahadeo Lal remained in possession of the properties mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint as absolute owner. He died in the year 1959 leaving behind him the plaintiff arid the defendant first party as his heirs and after the death of Mahadeo Lal, the plaintiff and the defendant 1st party jointly inherited the suit lands and they came in joint possession of the same. The defendant No.1" the mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.2, was an old lady aged about 75 years of age. She was not keeping good health and sound mind. The defendant No.2 taking advantage of the ill health and: unsoundness of mind of defendant No started manipulating things and started, preparing documents in favour of his wife, who has been made defendant IInd party in the suit with dishonest motive and practising fraud upon the defendant No.1 and for that purpose, the defendant No.2 put the defendant No. 1 in segregation and did not allow the plaintiff to meet her. Further, case is that the plaintiff asked the defendant No.2 to get the properties partitioned by metes and bounds but he avoided to make partition of the suit land on one pretext or the other. Hence, the plaintiff brought the suit for partition.