Mere definition of shares in revenue and village papers, without an intention to separate, does not indicate severance of joint status in a Hindu family.

Kanhaiya Singh, J.

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga dated 23rd December, 1955, dismissing her suit for partition. The following genealogical table will show the relationship between the parties and help in appreciating the facts of the case :

PRASAD CHOUDHARY

______________|_________ _________

| |

Badri Dilan

___|_______ |

| | Jivan (deft. 1)

Balgobind Pearey __ ___|______ ___

Window-Banarasi | |

P.W.10 Nand Lal Ramsiristha

| Deft. 2 Deft. 3

Ramkhelawan | |

daughter-Savitry Devi | Shiva Lall

Plaintiff | Deft. 6

__________|_______

| |

Rambharosh Ramnandan

Deft. 4. (Deft. 5)

It will appear from the above that Prasad Chaudhary was the common ancestor of the family of the defendants and the father of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, Prasad died before the survey and settlement operation. Shortly after His death, his two sons, Badri and Dilan, separated from each other, both in mess and management. Badri also died before the survey operation. In the survey record of rights, the family properties were recorded in the names of Balgovind. Pearey and Dilan. Balgovind predeceased Pearey and had no issue. Pearey also died subsequently leaving him surviving his only son Ramkhelawan. The latter also died leaving no heir, except his daughter Srimati Savitri Devi, who is the plaintiff. The plaintiffs case was that although Badri and Dilan separated from each other, there was no partition of the joint family properties by metes and bounds, and Badri and Dilan cultivated the family properties separately by mutual arrangement for the sake of convenience. On these allegations, the plaintiff prayed for partition of the joint family properties, as mentioned in Schedule I, by metes and bounds and for allotment to her a separate takhta of eight annas share.

The properties mentioned in Schedule II to the plaint also consisted of joint family properties. Since, however, there are other cosharers and the share, of the plaintiff was small, as indicated in the said Schedule of the different properties, the plaintiff did not seek partition of Schedule II properties and prayed that her shares in those properties only may be declared.

2. The defendants who were all descendants of Dilan denied separation in the family. They denied that Badri and Dilan had separated from each other. They denied further that the plaintiff was the daughter of Ramkhelawan. They alleged that Ramkhelawan died issueless. They asserted that the family is and has all along been joint, and there was no separation at any stage, and Ramkhelawan, the husband of the plaintiff, died in a state of jointness with the defendants and by survivorship all the Family properties devolved upon them. They also challenged the correctness of the genealogy set up by the plaintiff and alleged that certain other members had been omitted.

3. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff was the daughter of Ramkhelawan and that the genealogy as given by the plaintiff was correct. He further held that there was no separation between Badri and Dila