RANA MAHATABSINGH SINGH Vs. BADAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces bearing date the 19th of April 1917, which reversing the order of the District Judge of Nimar on the preliminary issue on which he had disposed of the suit, remanded the case for a further decision upon the merits, The present appeal to this Board is from that remand order. The fasts of the suit have been set out at considerable length in the judgments of the two Courts in India. Their Lordships are thus relieved of the (sic) of dealing with them at any length.

(2.) THE parties to the action, excepting the second plaintiff, are members of an old Rajpoot family settled in the District of Nimar for several centuries. Their possessions, which the Judicial Commissioners not without reason think must have been at one time considerable, have now dwindled to two revenue free or muafi villages, Nadia and Pangra, two revenue-paying or malguzart villages, Peplod and Jirvan, and certain zirat and sir lands. The plaintiff, Badan Singh, who is the younger brother of the principal and contesting defendant, Mahatab Singh, alleges that upon the death of their father Umed Singh in 1892, he along with Mahatab and another brother Nirbhe Singh, who has since died, became entitled upon partition, as members of a joint Hindu family, each to a one-third share in the family property. He further alleged that his cause of action arose when he was ousted from joint possession in 1909, the defendant having turned him out of the family dwelling-house. He adoringly sued for a decree for partition and for possession of his share. The second plaintiff, who is the clerk of the Pleader in the action and is admittedly financing the litigation, is the assignee from Badan Singh of a 4 anna share in the revenue-free villages, the most valuable part of the family property.

(3.) THE following genealogical table will explain the relative position of the parties and of the collaterals who have been examined in the case: