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, Tile