GULZAR RAM Vs. MAHESHWAR RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Shri R.K. Tuli, 3rd Additional Sub -Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Partition Suit No, 66 of 1980 by which the learned Sub -Judge decreed the suit in part,

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs/respondents in brief as stated that the plaintiffs and defendants are the descendants of the common ancestor Bhulan Ram who was the survey -recorded Raiyat of land of Khata Nos. 42, 89, 110, 118 of the village Dhub, P.S. Panki, District Palamau, Bhulan Ram, who was the recorded Raiyat of the land in suit died leaving behind five sons, namely Fulchand Ram, Deochand Ram, Bandhu Ram, Ghanshyam Ram and Sheo Ram. After the death of Bhulan Ram, Deochand Ram died in about 1952 without leaving any issue and after his death, his share of 1/5th was devolved to four brothers. It is further claimed that Fulchand Ram also died in or about 1954 leaving behind two sons, namely Dharamdeo Ram and Jageshwar Ram. Sheo Ram also died in the year 1962 leaving behind one son, namely Guljar Ram and two daughters, Kamli Devi and Kunti Devi, defendant Nos. 7, 9 and 10, who were born from his first wife, Panchiya Devi, who predeceased her husband and defendant No. 8, Rajendra Ram born from the second wife of Sheo Ram, namely, Tepi Devi. It is also claimed that Tepi Devi remarried with Aklu Ram after the death of Sheo Ram and also relinquished all her right and interest in the property of Sheo Ram by means of two registered sale -deeds dated 24 -1 -1978 and 16 -8 -1978 executed in favour of the plaintiff Nos, 9 and 11 and also in favour of plaintiff Nos. 5 to 11. The plaintiff No. 1 along with his sons who are the Karta/Manager and representative of their respective joint family are showing as such owned and possessed l/4th share besides 1/10th share acquired by plaintiff Nos. 5 to 11. The members of four branches of Bhulan Ram are in separate possession of the separate land and cultivating the lands according to the respective shares according to the convenience. On account of suit land remaining joint between the parties, the plaintiffs fell greatly handicapped in making any improvement in the suit land and, therefore, the plaintiff requested the defendants for an amicable partition by metes and bounds, which was evaded, hence the suit.

(3.) CONSIDERING the pleadings of both sides, the learned Court below framed as many as seven issues for consideration of the suit, which are as follows: