K.Sahai, J.

1. This case has been placed before this Bench because there are conflicting decisions of this Court on some of the points of law involved in it of the case may be summarised as follows. I may first give short geneology.

2. This appeal by the defendant, Khatrani Kuer, arises out of a suit for partition. The facts of the case may be summarized as follows. I may first give short geneology.

Bisheshwar

______________________|______________________

| | |

Sidhnath Gauri Jagannath

(died in 1953)

=Jasmati Kuer

(died in 1954).

|__________________________

| |

Chandrapal Daughter

(died before 1953) Tapeshwari Kuer

=Khetrani Kuer (Plaintiff)

(defendant).

There was a partition between Sidhnath and his brothers in 1939 after the death of Bisheshwar, and they were separate from each other. We are not concerned with the properties allotted to Gauri and Jagannath because the controversy in this case relates only to the property held by the branch of Sidhnath. As I have indicated, Chandrapal died in a state of jointness with his father b