JIJI BAI Vs. CHOWDHARY RATAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MITCHELL , A.J.C. 1. The following-genealogical tree shows the relationship of the parties : (See p. 1.14 for the genealogical tree.)

(2.) THE dispute relates to the property of R.B. Chaudhri Pulandar Singh, and is between the surviving descendants by his first wife, Pahun Singh and Ratan Singh, who are the defendants respondents, and his grandchild by the second wife, Mt. Jiji, who sued for her father's share and was represented by her aunt Mt. Gomti Bai. The case for the plaintiff Jiji is that Pulandar Singh, shortly before he died in 1917, broke up the coparcenary consisting of himself and his three surviving sons Maharaj Singh Ratan Singh and Girwar Singh and divided 'the landed property among them giving to each a list of the property; allotted to him; and that this partition1 of the property was completed in July of the following year, when the house-hold property and moveables were divided up and lists made out of the various shares. The plaintiff alleged that her father Girwar Singh remained in separate possession of his share until his death, on 3/2/24, but the defendants, Ratan Singh and Pahup Singh have taken possession of the whole estate, and are as sorting that she has no interest. She based her claim distinctly on Girwar Singh's separate status and separata possession at the time of his death, and gave her cause of action as arising on his death and on her dispossession by the defendants and their denials of her title. The case for the defendants was that there was no partition, and that Pulandar Singh before his death only indicated how partition should be made in the event of his sons separating.

(3.) DURING the preliminary stages of the trial the lower Court treated the issues relating to the admissibility of the partition lists as preliminary issues and recorded findings as already indicated on 17-3-25. On 26-3-25 the plaintiff protested, claiming that she should be allowed to prove that the family was divided when Girwar Singh died, and to file lists of the property to which she is entitled. The lower Court held that the plaint was based on a definite partition which could not be proved, and that it would be improper to allow the plaintiff to amend her pleadings at that stage.