Mahapatra, J.

1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 1 in a partition suit in which the plaintiffs claimed that each one of them had one-fourth share in the properties given in the schedules of the plaint. They admitted that defendant No. 1 was entitled to one such share also. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the full brothers and plaintiff No. 4 is their mother. Defendant No. 1 is the step brother of plaintiffs 1 to 3 from the first wife of their father,

2. The plaintiffs case is, that the immoveable properties described in Schedules B, C and D came to the exclusive share of their father, Raghunath, in a partition with his brothers, and these properties remained in his possession till his death in 1949. Thereafter disputes arose between the parties, and the plaintiffs wanted to partition the family properties out, as the defendant No. 1 did not agree to that, they were forced to bring the suit. The other defendants originally impleaded as pro forma defendants represented the branches, of the four brothers of Raghunaths father. They were subsequently expunged as admittedly they had no interest in the litigation. The common ancestor Baidyanath Mahanti, left five sons of whom Brojmohan w