CHAHBAR MAHTO Vs. KAUSHALYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHATURA Mahto of village Lapungdih, Tola Oradih, Dis -trict -Ranchi, died leaving behind two sons Motha Mahto and Chaitan Mahto. Motha Mahto had a son, Raghwa Malito, who had two sons, Lal Mahto and Bhola Mahto. La! Mahto had two sons, Jagarnath Mahto and Motha Mahto and a daughter. Mani Mahtain, defendant No. 8. Jagarnath Mahto died leaving behind his widow. Kunti Mahatain, defendant No. 3 and a son Chahbar Mahto, defendant No. 1 and a daughter, Sambal Mahtain, defendant No. 2. Motha Mahto left behind his widow, Bimbla Mahtain, defendant No. 5, a son, Ajambar Mahto, defendant No. 4 and two daughters, Sarla and Suloehana, defendants 6 and 7. Bhola Mahto had three sons. Lakshman Mahto, Radha Malito, defendant No. 10, Haria Mahto, defendant No. 11 and a daughter Khudani Mahtain, defendant No. 12. Lakshman "lahte died leaving behind his widow, Babai Mahtain, defendant No. 9. Chaitan Mahto died leaving behind a son Lobin Mahto, who left behind a son, Chatura Mahto, the sole plaintiff.

(2.) ACCORDING to plaintiff, descendants of Chatura Mahto were in joint possession of the suit lands, although they were cultivating some lands separately for the sake of convenience and there had never been any partition between them by metes and bounds. Plaintiff claimed half share, whereas l/4th share belonged to defendants 1 to 8 and the remaining l/4th share belonged to defendants 9 to 12 in the suit lands, detailed in Schedule B to the plaint.

(3.) TRIAL Court decreed the suit holding that there was unity of title and possession between the parties with respect to the suit lands and no proper partition by metes and bounds had taken place so far between the parties. The plaintiff was. therefore, entitled to half share in Schedule B properties.