Partition by metes and bounds is presumed when a partition is proved in a Hindu family.

B.P.Jha, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a partition suit.

2. The plaintiffs-appellants claim 1/3rd share in the suit properties as mentioned in Schedules A, B and C of the plaint. They claim partition on the ground that the suit properties are the joint family properties. In other words, they claim unity of title and possession in respect of suit properties.

3. The case of the defendants was that there was a previous partition and the parties had been dealing with the properties separately by executing registered documents.

4. On these facts, the trial court held that there was a previous partition and, as such, the partition suit was not maintainable. Accordingly, it dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.

5. Before proceeding with the case, it is necessary to give the genealogy of the ancestors of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The common ancestor of the plantitts and the defendants was Bharosi Mahto. Bharosi Mahto had four sons, namely, (1) Sadhu Mahto, (2) Sidhi Mahto, (3) Kamswarup Mahto and (4) Ramlagan Mahto. The sons and grandsons of Ramlagan Mahto are the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were Deodutta Mahto and Suraj Mahto as plaintiffs 1 and 2. Guptesbwar Singh, Tileshwar Singh and Ramji Singh were the sons of Deodutta Mahto as plaintiffs 3, 4 and 5, The defendants are the heirs of Sadhu Mahto and Ramswarup Mahto. Sadhu Mahto ha two sons, namely, Ganesh Mahto and Jagarnath Mahto. Jagarnath Mahto was defendant No. 1. The sons of Jagarnath Mahto, namely, Ramayan Mahto and Rajendra Mahto are defendants 2 and 3. Badri Mahto and Sheopujan Mahto are defendants 4 and 5, being the sons of Ganesh Mahto. Bbarata Mahto, Bechan Mahto and Bacha Mahto are defendants to 8, being the sons of Sheopujan Mahto (defendant no, 5). Gobardhan Singh son of Rarasarup Mahto was defendant No. 9. After his death, his widow, namely, Most.Nagina, and his three sons, Mukteshwar Singh, and Lakshuman Singh and Laiji Singh were added as defendants 9, 10, 11 and 12. Defendants 13, 14, 15 and 16 are the purchasers of the interest of the different pattidars.

6. According to the plaint, all the four sons of Bharosi, namely, Sadhu Mahto, Sidhi Mahto Ramswarup Mahto and Ramlagan Mahto were members of a joint; family and they were holding the properties as joint family properties. It is on the basis of this allegation that the plaintiffs claimed 1 /3rd share in suit properties as being the heirs of Ramlagan Mahto. It is an admitted position that Sidhi Mahto died issueless in the year 1922. Thereafter, only three brothers remained namely, Sadhu Mahto, Ramswarup Mahto and Ramlagan Mahto. In this background, the plaintiffs being the heirs of Ramlagan Mahto claimed 1/3rd share in the joint family properties.

7. The only question for decision in this appeal is: Whether there was a previous partition between Sadhu Mahto, Sidhi Mahto, Ramswarup Mahto and Kamlagan Mahto?

8. The answer must be given in the affirmative in the facts and circumstances of the case. Apart from the oral testimonies, there is a lot of documentary evidence to suggest that there was a partition between the four brothers namely, Sadhu, Sidhi, Ramswarup and Ramlagan. In this connection, a reference is made to Exts. 5 series. Exts. 5 (a), 5 (b), 5 (c), 5 (d) and 5 (e) are the certified copies of the records of rights of the different disputed mauzas in the suit. Ext. 5 (a) is the khatian of mauza Kauriam Ram Ext 5(b) is the khatian of mauza Barej; Ext. 5 (c) is the khatian of mauza Kishunpura; Ext. (d) is the khatian of mouza Sondihra; and Ext. 5 (e) is the khatian of mouza Belouri. It is an undisputed fact that all the suit lands are situated in these mauzas. There is a common entry in all the khatians to the effect that these four brothers, namely, Sadhu, Sidhi, Ramswarup and Ramlagan, sons of Bharosi, had equal shares in the areas in the mouzas mentioned in these khatians. These khatians suggest that there was a partition between the four brothers who were the sons of Bharosi and they h