(1.) The plaintiff -appellants' suit for declaration of title in schedule 1 properties and in the alternative for partition of the properties described in schedule 2 of the plaint has been dismissed by the 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge, Chapra. By three separate sale deeds executed on 26.6.1960, Rampati Kuer transferred schedule 2 lands in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs accordingly claim title to schedule 2 properties. The original defendant Shivbaran Rai, her brother -in -law, however, in his written statement has claimed that Rampati Kuer had no interest in the properties on or before 26.6.1980 and accordingly the defendant has claimed that the plaintiffs have neither any title in the schedule 1 properties or equity to seek partition of the lands described in schedule II.
(2.) The facts are not in controversy. Bihari Rai died leaving behind three sons, Ram Kishun Rai, Keshwar Rai and Sheo Baran Rai. Ram Kishun Rai died leaving behind his widow Mosstt. Parkalo Kuer. Mosstt. Parkalo Kuer also has died. Keshwar Rai died leaving behind Ramrati Kuer, the plaintiffs' vendor.
(3.) According to the plaintiffs Ram Kishun Rai, Keshwar Rai and Shivbaran Rai had separated in mess and properties and accordingly after Ram Kishun Rai's death, Mostt Parkalo Kuer held the properties belonging to his share and after Parkalo's death Keshwar Rai and Shivbaran Rai together inherited Ram Kishun Rai's share After Keshwar Rai's death Ramrati Kuer, his widow, inherited his interest in the property. She became absolute owner after the Hindu Succession Act came into force. She, by executing three sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/ - each, conveyed schedule 1 lands to them. They have, accordingly, acquired title to schedule 1 lands. By amending the plaint they have also said that in case it is found that there has been no partition by metes and bounds between Ramrati Kuer and Shivbaran the estate should be partitioned half and half and a decree accordingly passed.