VIDYA DEVI Vs. KAUSALYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Murat Mahto of village Chaakwai, Tola Baghi at present within Nawadah district, died leaving his three sons, Meghan Mahto, Baijnath Mahto, the defendant No. 1 and Nanhku Mahto, the original plaintiff.Baijnath Mahto got two sons, namely, Devi Prasad, the defendant No. , 9, who was given in adoption to one Daroga Mahto of village Amar Singh Bigha and Nand Prasad Nand Kishore Prasad, the defendant No. 2, Meghan Mahto left behind two sons, Harslal Mahto and Ramjee Mahto. Lakhan Mahto son of Harslal Mahto died leaving behind his widow, Kaushalya Devi, the original defendant No. 3 and two sons, Vijay Mahto and Mukhlal Mahto, the original defendants and 5, Ramjee Mahto died leaving behind his widow,Lakshmi Devi the original defendant No. 6 and two sons, Awadhesh Mahto and Dinesh Mahto, the original defendants 7 and 8.

(2.) On 14.11.1972 Nanhku Mahto filed Title (Partition) Suit No. 266 of 1972 in the Court of the Second Subordinate judge, Gaya for partition of his 1/3rd share in the joint family property detailed in schedule A to the plaint.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit, on 21.2.1973 Nanhku Mahto executed a registered deed of gift (Ext.5) in favour of the defendants 4, 5, 7 and 8 in respect of his 1/3rd share in Schedule A properties and thereafter on 17.5.1973 he died unmarried on 7.8.1973 the defendants 3 to 8 appeared and filed a petition under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be transposed as plaintiffs on the basis of Ext. 5 in place of thee deceased sole plaintiff. In the meantime on 12.7.1973 the defendants 1 and 2 had already appeared. However, by order dated 10.8.1973 the said petition of the defendants 3 to 8 was allowed and they were transposed as the plaintiffs 1 to 6 in place of the deceased sole plaintiff. The transposed plaintiffs claimed partition of their 2/3rd share in Schedule A properties.