An entry in the Record of Rights showing the shares of each member of the family may be considered as evidence of severance of joint status, especially when the presumption of jointness is not strong.

DHARMPAL SINHA, J.

1. In this appeal, which has arisen from a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage, the substantial questions of law formulated for decision, are as follows :

"(1) Whether the entry of the name of Mostt. Isara Kuer (name) in Ext. C, Revisional Survey Records showing her share in the suit property, is evidence of severance of the joint status?(2) Whether the inclusion of the name of Mostt. Isara Kuer in Ext. B, -arpeshgi deed, further proves that the definition of the shares in the Revisional Survey was with a view to show partition in the family?

2. The relevant facts necessary for decision of the questions may briefly be stated as follows:The Respondents in this appeal, who were plaintiffs in the suit (appellants in the first appeal) had instituted the suit for redemption of mortgage after depositing the necessary mortgage money under Sec. 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit related to redemption of usufructuary mortgage created by the mortgage deed (Ext. B) that had been executed on 7-8-1941, relating to 1 Bigha 13 kathas and 12 dhurs of land, by two widows - one Mostt. Maweshra Kuer and one Isara Kuer.

3. The respondents claim to have purchased the mortgaged land under a sale deed executed on 11-7-1964 from the successor-in-interest of Maweshra alias Masara Kuer, who was widow of Sital Pandey, one of the two sons of one Hari Pandey.

4. On the other hand the appellants in this appeal, who were defendants in the suit (and respondents in the first appeal) contested the suit and claimed to have acquired title over the mortgaged land by virtue of purchase under a sale deed executed on 29-8-1964 from successor-in-interest of Isara Kuer, who was widow of one Tulsi Pandey, who was the other son of Hari Pandey.

5. There was, admittedly, a common ancestor, Hari Pandey, who had two sons Sital Pandey and Tulsi Pandey, Sital Pandey had two sons, one of whom died in childhood and the other was Ramnath. Tulsi Pandey died long back before Sital Pandey leaving behind his widow, Isara, and when the Revisional Survey had been prepared Sital Pandey had also died, and the name of his son Ramnath and the widow of Tulsi, named, Isara Kuer were recorded in the Revisionatl Record of Rights. Later Ramnath had also died unmarried and his mother, Maweshara Kuer along with Isara Kuer had executed the usufructuary mortgage deed (Ext. B). In the Record of Rights, which has been brought on the record as Ext. C, an entry had been made indicating that both the recorded tenants had equal. share (BAHISSA BARABAR). According to the case of the respondents Tulsi had died issueless when he was joint with Sital and after his death, his entire interest in the land in question passed on Sital Pandey by the Law of Survivorship; and Tulsis widow, Isara got only maintenance and was living with the other branch. According to the respondents after the death of Sital and another son of Sital, (Ram Dhyan) who died in the childhood, Ramnath alone had interest in the mortgaged land, but only for her satisfaction the name of Isara Kuer was also recorded in the record of rights along with that of Ramnath, though she had no right, title or interest in the land in question.

6. As regards execution of the mortgaged deed (-arpeshgi) on 7-8-1941 by both Isara Kuer and Maweshra, it was their stand that joining of Isara was not needed as she had no interest in the land, that was mortgagdd, because according to their case, as indicated above, all the interest of Tulsi after his death long back had gone to Sital by the Law of Survivorship, and alter Sital to Ramnath and then to the heir of Ramnath, namely, Mashara whose successor-in-interest could transfer the same to the respondents.

7. Appellants on the other hand took the stand that there was already a severance of joint status between Sital Pandey and Tulsi Pandey before Tulsi had died and they had separated in mess, although there was no partition by metes and bounds, between them of the