Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) A Division Bench has referred the Second Appeal to a Full Bench to resolve the conflict of opinion in Mahabir Singh v. Bhagwanti, 14 All LJ 278 = (AIR 1916 All 111) and Ram Singh v. Baldeo Prasad, 1932 All LJ 605 = (AIR 1932 All 643).
(2.) THIS is a defendant's appeal. It arises out of a suit for partition of a house and a tenancy holding. The plain tiff set up the following pedigree:- DU \GU Munni Chhi Jhandey Lal (Plaintiff) dda Chhangey 1 Mst. Kaushalya (Widow) I Mst. Rajo Chhotey Lal Ram Singh (Widow) (Defendant (Defendant (Defendant No. 3) No. 1) No. 2) Munni died on 17-11-1918, leaving a son Jhandey Lal, the plaintiff-respondent. Chhangey died on 10-4- 1925. His widow, Smt. Kaushalya died in 1932. Chhiddu died during the pendency of the suit, leav ing a widow, Smt. Rajo and two sons, who are defendants-appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The plaintiff's case was that the house as well as the holding in dispute was acquired by Durga. On his death, these properties were inherited by his three sons in equal shares. The sons of Durgu constituted a Joint Hindu Family. The properties' were coparcenary proper ties. On the death of Chhangey, his share went to the other members of the coparce nary by survivorship. Consequently, the plaintiff had a 1/2 share in the house as well as in the tenancy holding.
(3.) THE defence was that the three sons of Durgu were separate. Chhangey's share was inherited by his widow, Smt. Kaushalya. On her death, Chhangey's share went to his brother Chhiddu as the nearest heir. The plaintiff, who was one degree removed, did not inherit Chhangey's l/3rd share. Consequently, Chhiddu's share was 2/3, while the plaintiff was en titled only to l/3rd share, in the proper ties. The trial Court held that the house as well as the tenancy holding was joint family property, succession to which was governed by the rule of survivorship. The plaintiff was entitled to a half share in both these properties. The suit was decreed for partition of a half share.;