SARASWATIDEVI Vs. BALRAM MANJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as both arise out of same judgment passed in a first appeal, which was preferred against the judgment and decree passed in one suit.

(2.) The short facts leading to filing of these appeals are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition claiming 5 annas 4 pies share in the suit property and their case, in short, is that one Chaitnatb, who was common ancestor of the parties, had three sons, namely, Raghu, Shatrughan and Buka. Plaintiffs are the great grandsons of Shatrughan being the son of Baidyanath and they represent l/3rd share of Shatrughan in the joint family property. Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are heirs of Buka. Raghu had two sons, namely, Bishambhar and Jagu. Each of the aforesaid three sons of Chaitnath had l/3rd shares in the joint family property. It is said that Jagu who was one of the sons of Raghu had sold his 2 annas 8 pies share in the joint family property to Brindawan, who belonged to the branch of Buka and thereby Buka's branch had 8 annas share in the joint family property. Bishambhar, another son of Raghu, had sold his 2 annas 8 pies share to U. C. Roy, the ancestor of defendant Nos 6 to 10, who in his turn settled the same with Ghasi Ram, son of Bisbambhar. Since the parties felt inconvenience in joint enjoyment of the property and request of partition was turned down, the same necessitated filing of the present suit.

(3.) In the suit defendant Nos. 6 to 9 have filed one written statement and defendant No 10 has filed another written statement, but their defence is common These defendants have supported the claim of the plaintiffs and they have made a prayer that their 2 annas 8 pies share in the suit property be carved out.