SINHA, J.

1. This is an appeal by defendants Ist Party against the decision of learned Subordinate Judge, Arrah decreeing Title Suit No. 30 of 1963, instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents for partition of the properties described in the four Schedules to the plaint after declaration of title over the properties covered by two of the four schedules, namely, Schedules 3 and 4 to the plaint.

2. The plaintiffs and defendants Ist party, defendant No. 8 being the daughter-in-law of one of the defendants Ist party, hail from a common ancestor, namely, Debi Charan Pandey. The genealogy as given in the plaint, was not disputed before this Court. It would, therefore suffice to say that one Debi Charan Pandey had four sons namely, Sohbat Pandey, Lal Bahari Pandey, Sheo Tahal Pandey and Naubat Pandey. Plaintiff No. 1, Balmakund Pandey undisputedly, having alias name of Mukund Pandey, is the grandson of Lal Behari Pandey. Lakshmi Pandey (Plaintiff No. 2), Rajeshwari Kuer (Plaintiff No. 3), Bhim Pandey (Plaintiff No. 4), Shri Ram Pandey (Plaintiff No. 5), Sidhnath Pandey (Plaintiff No. 6), Most. Jatia (Plaintiff No. 7) represent the branch of Sheo Tahal Pandey. Naubat Pandey had three