RAMAYAN SINGH Vs. HARBANSH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the petitioners in this Civil Revision application.

(2.) The plaintiffs opposite party filed a suit for partition in respect of the properties fully described in the schedule of the plaint. From the statements made in this Civil Revision application it appears that in different schedules of the plaint, different types of properties were mentioned including agricultural land, house, orchard, money etc.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit, ths application under Section. 4(C) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 was filed on behalf of these petitioners saying that in vie v of the aforesaid provision, the suit of plaintiffs has abated. That prayer was rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge by the impugned order. He had observed in the order that houses, orchards and even money are also the subject-matter of partition and as such it cannot be held that the suit has abated. In my opinion to the extent, the learned Sub-Judge was right, but he has said nothing in respect of the agricultural land.