PARTAP NARAIN SINGH Vs. RAM KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this case relates to some shares in certain pattis of the village Kartarpur, and the complaint of the plaintiffs is that in the course of a partition proceeding, instituted by Lachhman Das for the partition of his share of the said village followed by certain intermediate applications made by Ram Kumar Singh and Mahip Singh for the partition of what; they described as their share therein, an order was passed by the partition officer in his capacity as Assistant Collector on the report of the patwari of the village, directing the correction of certain entries in the khewat in a manner prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiffs. The facts of the case are some what complicated, and we had some difficulty in getting the right facts in consequence of the manner in which the case was presented to us. We give the facts as stated to us or as far as they could be ascertained from the papers laid before us for consideration.

(2.) The plaintiffs and the defendant Jadunandan Singh are the descendants of one Salhant Singh. The defendant Ram Kumar Singh is the son of Mahip Singh and the nephew of Mata Din, both of whom form a branch of the family from another branch of which Salhant; Singh was descended. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that they and their predecessor Salhant Singh were separate from Mahip Singh and Mata Din and also from Ram Kumar Singh, the present contesting defendant. Ram Kumar Singh however asserted that he and his father Mahip Singh and also his uncle Mata Din lived jointly with Salhant Singh and his descendants up to 1325 F. The dispute between the parties centered round certain acquisitions which had been made in the name of Salhant Singh in 1865, 1866, 1869 and 1894. There was also a dispute about certain property acquired in the names of the plaintiffs in 1901. By an order of the Assistant Collector passed on 26 September 1922, in the mutation proceeding, instituted on the report of the patwari above referred to, both branches were recorded as owners of the property purchased in the name of Salhant Singh.

(3.) The trial Court found in a judgment which itself is not free from inconsistencies, that the family was separate in mess and some cultivation, but in other respects it was joint. It proceeded to observe that while it could hardly be described as a joint family it was equally difficult to say that it was a separate family and the conclusion at which it ultimately arrived was that the separation would be deemed to have taken place in 1325 F. It further found that the plaintiffs had no cause of action against Mahabir and that Section 233(k) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act (III of 1901) barred the claim.