JADUBIR CHAUDHARY Vs. SUMANGALI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendants is directed against the decision of the court below decreeing the suit in part. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the properties described in the plaint claiming 1/8th share on the allegation that she is the widow of Siban Chaudhary, a member of the family of the defendants. The genealogical table of the family is given at page 11 of the paperbook. In Schedule 1, the immovable properties belonging to the family are included and in Schedule 2 certain movables are mentioned.

(2.) Two written statements were filed by the major defendants, one by defendants 1 to 5 and 8 and the other by defendants 9, 10 and 12. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is an imposter and not the widow of Siban Chaudhary who died bachelor. It was also stated that a partition had been effected in 1927 between the branches of the two brothers Hansraj Chaudhary and Uttam Chaudhary and in 1951 there was a further partition amongst the defendants 9, 10 and 11.

(3.) A Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court on the prayer of defendant No. 1 who submitted a bill after completing his work. In spite of a direction by the court, the remuneration of the Commissioner was not paid by the parties and the court, therefore, passed an order striking off the defence. The result was that the suit was heard ex parte. The defendants were, accordingly, not permitted to lead evidence and the plaintiff examined only one witness, that is, herself, in support of her case on 21-4-1965. The court below on that very day, decreed the suit in respect of Schedule 1 properties by a very perfunctory judgment,