RAM BAHADUR NATH TIWARY Vs. KEDAR NATH TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff. A suit for partition of one-third share in the properties described in the schedule attached to the plaint has been dismissed.

(2.) It will be relevant to give the genealogy of the family as given by the plaintiff. One Madho Nath Tiwari had five sons, viz., Gobind Nath Tiwari, Ram-lochan Nath Tiwari, Baldeo Nath Tiwari, Hardeo Nath Tiwari and Mahanand Nath Tiwari. Mahanand died issueless and his line became extinct. Hardeo died leaving behind a widow Jagrani Kuer. It was stated that some lands of the joint family were given to Jagrani Kuer for her maintenance which after her death devolved upon the three remaining brothers, viz., Gobind Nath Tiwari, Ramlochan Nath Tiwari and Baldeo Nath Tiwari. Gobind Nath Tiwari left behind a son Gokul Nath Tiwari and the letter's son Ram Bahadur Nath Tiwari is the plaintiff-appellant. Ramlochan Nath Tiwari had a son named Ramgan Nath Tiwari who died leaving behind him his widow Mt. Fulohra Kuer and a daughter Asharfi Kuer. Ramchan-dra Tiwari (defendant No. 7) is said to be the son of Asharfi Kuer. Baldeo Nath Tiwari died leaving behind four sons, Ramakant Nath Tiwari, Radhakant Nath Tiwari, Jagat Nath Tiwari and Jagdish Nath Tiwari. Jagat Nath Tiwari and Jag-dish Nath Tiwari are defendants Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. Ramakant Nath Tiwari died leaving behind him two sons, Ram Nath Tiwari and Kailash Nath Tiwari who are defendants Nos. 5 and 6, respectively. Radhakant Nath Tiwari died leaving behind him two sons Bijoy Nath Tiwari and Chuman Tiwari, who are defendants Nos. 3 and 4, respectively. This genealogy was disputed by defendants Nos. 1 to 6. According to them, Ramchandra Tiwari (defendant No. 7) was nobody and was unnecessarily made a party to the suit. Further, Gokul Nath Tiwari, father of the plaintiff, died leaving behind two sons, viz., Ram Bahadur (plaintiff) and Ramdeo alias Banka and four daughers, viz., Mt. Asharfi, Motia, Tilia and Jalia, and Ramgan Nath Tiwari died issueless leaving behind his widow Fulahara Kuer. It appears that defendant No. 8 Mt. Lachhminia Devi and defendant No. 9 Mt. Nagesara Kuer were Later added as parties to the suit. Defendant No. 10 Dipnarain Misra son of Ramgan Nath Tiwari's daughter and defendant No. 11 Ramdeo Nath Tiwari became intervenor defendants.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff, in short, was that the properties described in the schedule attached to the plaint were the ancestral properties of the parties to the suit and that the plaintiff had one-third share, defendants Nos. 1 to 6 had one-third share and defendant No. 7 also had one-third share in the properties. According to the plaintiff, the three branches of the family had been coming on in separate possession of the property in question but no partition had been effected by metes and bounds.