Tarkeshwar Nath, J.

1. This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit for partition of their 1/6th share in the property described in Schedule A of the plaint.

2. The relationship between the parties will appear from the following genealogical table mentioned in the plain.

179.htm

3. The plaintiffs case was that they and the defendants separated in mess and properties long ago but the property in suit mentioned in Schedule A was still joint between them and they were in joint possession of the same. Harihar Sah (defendant No. 1) being the eldest member of the family was the karta of this family and in that capacity he was managing that property on behalf of the parties to this suit and in course of the management defendant No. 1 let out to different tenants on monthly rent the house described in Schedule A of the plaint. The income received from that property used to be divided between the plaintiffs and defendants according to their respective shares. Plaintiffs had 1/6th share. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 also had 1/6th share. Similarly defendants 2, 5 and 6 as well had 1/6th share and lastly defendant No. 7 had half share in the said property. Some time in November 1958 a