VISHNUDEO NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 (hereinafter called as appellants) is directed against the impugned Judgment and decree dated 30.8.1989 and 8.9.1989 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 11 of 1976 by Shri Om Prakash Sinha, 1st Additional District Judge, Deoghar whereby and whereunder the appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1975 and 19.1.1976 respectively passed in Title (Partition) Suit No. 112 of 1970/23 of 1975 of 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Deoghar were set aside and the said Title (Partition) Suit was decreed.
(2.) PLAINTIFF Dukhi Mandal, the predecessor in interest of present respondent 1st set had filed the aforementioned suit for metes and bounds partition of the ancestral joint family properties situate at village Bhanuarkola, Gulaldih, Dumarkola and Fatehpur situate in the District of Deoghar, Bihar (Now Jharkhand) claiming 1/4th share therein fully detailed in Schedule A (a, b, c, d) and Schedule B at the foot of the plaint. Said Dukhi Mandal died during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate Court below and the present respondent 1st set were substituted in his place. The case of the plaintiff respondent 1st set is that all the parties to the suit are the members of Joint Hindu Mitakshara Family being the descendants of their common ancestor Dhanwari Mandal and the joint family continued for some years after his death. Said Dhanwari Mandal had four sons, namely, Tulsi Mandal, the father of the appellants, Darogi Mandal, the father of respondents Nos. 6 and 7, Munsi Mandal, the father of respondent Nos, 8 and 9 and Dukhi Mandal, the father of respondent 1st set. It is alleged that after the death of Dhanwari Mandal aforesaid inconvenience was felt because of the growing family and his descendants separated in mess and started possessing and enjoying the family properties as per their convenience and choice without actual partition by metes and bounds according to their legal share and descendants of Mun -shi Mandal and Darogi Mandal shifted to Bhandarkola after the death of Dhanwari Mandal and started living there for the proper management of the properties situate there and due to the quarrel one year prior to the institution of the suit the descendants of Darogi Mandal shifted back to Gulaldih in the ancestral house of the parties. The further case of the plaintiff respondent 1st set is that Dukhi Mandal the original plaintiff constructed a pucca house of bricks tiles with partly cemented roof contiguous to the old ancestral house in village Guladih after the death of his father Dhanwari Mandal. Their further case is that the descendants of Dhanwari Mandal are not in good terms inter se and bad feelings are gradually taking roots and the original plaintiff Dukhi Mandal asked the appellants and defendant respondent 2nd set to partition the suit properties amicably by metes and bounds for allotting a separate Takhata to each of the branches of the four sons of Dhanwari Mandal for which the appellants and defendant respondent 2nd set did not agree and hence the necessity of the fling of the said partition suit. The plaintiff respondent has claimed 1/4th share in the suit property.
(3.) THREE sets of written statements were filed in this suit. One by the appellants, the other by defendant respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and 3rd by defendant respondent No. 8 but the said Title Suit has been contested only by the appellants.;