MOST. PANA DEVI Vs. AYODHAYA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs have filed this First Appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.06.1993 passed by the learned 4th Subordinate Judge, Siwan in Partition Suit No.289 of 1981 whereby the learned trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit in part.

(2.) The plaintiff appellants filed the aforesaid partition suit claiming that ?th share in Schedule I land and ?th share in Schedule II and Schedule III land. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 is the widow of late Satya Narain Prasad whereas the plaintiff No.2 and 3 are her daughter and the defendant No.1 and 2 are her sons. Schedule I property are the ancestral property of Satya Narain Prasad. There was no sufficient income from ancestral property, therefore, Satya Narain Prasad by his own labour earned money and purchased land and constructed a shop thereon at Notan Bazar wherein he started a Kirana business and this property is described in Schedule II. Thereafter, Satya Narain Prasad out of his own income purchased the Schedule III property by registered sale deed dated 12.12.1933. Therefore, Schedule II and Schedule III property are the self acquired property of Satya Narain. The plaintiffs being the widow and two daughters have got ?th share in Schedule I land and they have got ?th share in schedule II and Schedule III land. There had been no partition between them. The defendants are trying to grab the lands of the plaintiffs. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendants on being noticed appeared and filed contesting written statement alleging that the plaintiffs have no cause of action for the suit. Shyamlal Prasad who is owner of half land described in Schedule I of the plaint is a necessary party who was brother of Satya Narain Prasad. He died leaving behind widow and daughters who are necessary party, therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and as such is liable to be dismissed.