S. N. Jha, J.

1. -these appeals by the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 arise out of a suit for partition. They have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The common ancestor of the parties Baijnath Lal had five sons darshan Lal, Shep Prasad Lal, Surjan Lal, Bhagwati Sahai and Mathura prasad. The plaintiffs represent the branch of Mathura Prasad, who in fact, was the original plaintiff but died sometime after the institution of the suit. Defendent Nos 1 and 2 represent the branch of Darshan Lal. There is a head on controversy about the parentage of defendant No.3 radha Rani, since dead. According to defendant Nos.1 and 2, she was the daughter of Bhagwati Sahai while according to the plaintiffs, Bhagwati sahai died issueless and she was the daughter of Sheo Prasad Lal.

3. According to the plaintiffs case, Bhagwati Sahai died in state of jointness with his four brothers. There was partition in the family in 1932. Surjan Lal and Mathura Prasad got 1/4 share each in the joint-family properties. Darshan Lal and Sheo Prasad Lal, however, decided to live together, perhaps, because their wives were full sisters. They together got the rest 1/2 share. Accor