1. The question of law involved in this appeal is whether the share of ancestral properties allotted to Bauku on partition is "separate property" within the meaning of Sec.3 (1) of the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act (Act No. XVIII of 1937).

2. The plaintiffs Doman Mahto and Satranghan Mahto brought the suit on the allegation that they had obtained title to the disputed land by purchase from defendant No. 5, Mt. Jajba, by a registered Kobala dated the 3rd March, 1947. The case of the plaintiffs was that Makhan had four sons, Bauku, Sube, Trisul and Jugeshwar. Trisul and Jugeshwar are defendants 1 and 2. Sube died leaving a widow, Musammatt Jiwachi, defendant no, 4. Bauku died on the 1st of" December, 1946, before his son Chandreshwar. The case of the plaintiffs is that Musammat Jajba, defendant No. 5 was entitled to 1/4th share of the properties of Makhan and that the Kebala executed by defendant No. 5 on the 3rd March, 1947, conveyed valid title to the plaintiffs with regard to 1/4th share of the properties of Makhan.

The trial court found that Bauku and his brothers had separated in 1943, that Chandreshwar died first, on the 1st of Novembar, 1946, and that Bauku died