ANANDI MAHATO Vs. BHIKBARI MAHATO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision by the plaintiffs is directed against the order dated 11. 7. 75 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Sitamarhi in partition suit no. 7 of 1973 holding that the plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valoram court-fee on the valuation of the share claimed in the property of Banshi Mahato.

(2.) The plaintiffs' case in short as stated In the plaint is as follows. The common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendants first and second parties was one bhulu Mahto alias Raghu Mahto. He had three sons Banshi, Madho and Lalo. Madho's branch is represented by defendant no. 12. Lalo died leaving behind five sons, namely Nunu, Gulam, Rupan, Shibdhani and Ramdhani. According to the plaintiffs Rupan died issueless and joint with hfs brothers and therefore, his share on his death went by survivorship to his brothers. Nunu's descendants are defendants 1 to 6. Shibdhani's descendants are defendants 7 to 9 and Ramdhan's branch is represented by defendants 10 and 11. Gulam's wife was Mst. Etawaria. Their daughter Mst. Mohini is plaintiff no. 3. Plaintiff no. 1 (who is petitioner no. 1 in this application) is the son of plaintiff no. 3 and plaintiff no. 2 is the son of plaintiff no. 1.

(3.) The plaintiff's case is that the three brothers, namely Banshi, Madho and lalo separated amongst themselves but there was no partition amongst them. The further case of the plaintiffs is that Gulam who was their ancestor was adopted as karta putra of Banshi, as such the plaintiffs have claimed that Gulam inherited l/4th share in the property of Lalo that is he got l/12th by inheritance. According to the plaintiffs Gulam was karta putra of Bansi and therefore he also inherited the share of Bansi on latter's death which was l/3rd. Thus Gulam got 5/12th share in the ancestral properties.