RAM SARAN GARAIN Vs. TEK CHAND GARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by one Ram Saran Garain for declaration of his title to, and partition of certain immoveable property described in the plaint as the property of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara School of Law. The family according to the plaint consists of the plaintiff and his five brothers, being the sons of the defendant No. 1, Tek Chand Garain, by Mussamut Marno the defendant No. 4; of Dharam Singh, also a son of Tek Chand Garain by another wife Mussamut Dhano; and of Tek Chand Garain himself.

(2.) The position of the plaintiff Ram Saran Garain as the son of Tek Chand Garain is denied, the case of the principal defendant Dharam Singh being that Ram Saran was the son of a man by the name of Budhoo Danook to whom Mussamut Marno had been many years ago married, but that she subsequently deserted him and lived under the protection of his father, the defendant No. 1.

(3.) The first question that was raised in this case was whether Ram Saran Garain was the legitimate son of Tek Chand Garain, and as such entitled to claim partition of Tek Chand Garain's property.