The legal principle established is the concept of civil death due to remarriage and its impact on property rights, as well as the requirement for defendants to prove adverse possession.

JUDGMENT

This First Appeal has been filed by the defendants/appellants against the judgment and decree dated 16.05.1977 passed by Sri Dinesh Narain Dwibedi, the learned IVth Additional Sub Judge-Chapra in Partition Suit No. 166 of 1968 decreeing the plaintiffs/respondents suit for partition to the extent of their half share in the property mentioned in detail in schedule-I and II to the plaint.

2. The plaintiffs/respondents filed the aforesaid suit for partition on the facts which may be stated in brief that Harnam Rai, the common ancestor had two sons; Kashi Rai & Krishna Rai. Kashi Rai had two sons; Ramavtar Rai & Parichhan Rai. Parichhan died issueless, as such, his line extinct. Ramavtar had two sons; Sanga Rai & Gati Rai. Sanga Rai had three sons, namely, Hargovind Rai, Ramshubhag Rai & Mahadeo Rai. The second son of Ramavtar Rai, namely, Gati Rao had only one son, RamKrit Rai whose son is defendant No. 1, Ganesh Rai. The defendant No. 2, 3 & 4 are the sons of Ganesh Rai, the defendant No. 1.

3. The first son of Sanga Rai, namely, Hargovind had one son, Ram Nagina Rai whose two sons are the plaintiffs/respondents. Ramshubhag Rai, the second son of Sanga died issueless leaving behind his widow, Gulabo who also died subsequently. The third son of Sanga Rai, namely, Mahadeo died prior to 1935 leaving behind a son, Ramjatan Rai who is defendant No. 5. The defendants No. 6, 7, 8 & 9 are the sons of defendant No. 5. It may be mentioned here that the property described in schedule I to the plaint is the property of Ramshubhag Rai, the second son of Sanga. The property described in schedule-II to the plaint belonged to the branch of Krishna Rai, the second son of Harnam Rai. The said Krishna Rai had one son, namely, Bhishma Rai who had two sons; Saudagar Rai & Jhanak Rai. Saudagar Rai had only one son, Jaigovind, who died issueless, as such, his line extinct. Jhanak Rai died leaving behind two sons; Rajgovind Rai and Singer Rai. Rajgoving Rai had only one son, Rampukar Rai who died issueless in 1933 leaving behind his widow, Nanhaka @ Deosundara who is defendant No. 10. It is the case of the plaintiffs that this Nanhaka Kunwar @ Deosundara re-married in 1935 with Chhedi Singh and from Chhedi Singh she had one son, aged about 28 years and one daughter, aged about 22 years on the date of filing of the Partition Suit. The second son of Jhanak Rai, namely, Singer Rai died issueless leaving behind Most. Bahura Kunwar, his widow who also died in the year, 1968 prior to institution of the suit for partition. Accordingly, Rampukar Rai was the last male holder of the land of the family of Krishna Rai. For better appreciation of the genealogy table, the same is reproduced hereinbelow.

4. The further case of the plaintiffs is that Rampukar died issueless in 1933 leaving behind no issue. His widow , the defendant No. 10 was young, so she married in 1935 with Chhedi as a result of which she met with her civil death regarding the family of Rampukar and the property of Rampukar were jointly inherited equally by Ramkrit , Ramshubhag & Hargovind Singh who were agnates of equal degrees because Mahadeo had already died prior to 1935 & was not alive in 1935 when the succession to property of Rampukar opened. The property of Rampukar has been described in schedule-II of the plaint. The further case of the plaintiffs is that on the death of Hargovind, his son, Ram Nagina and on his death, the plaintiffs succeeded to the properties of their grandfather, Hargovind. Ramshubhag Rai, the second son of Sanga died issueless leaving behind widow, Gulabo who also died subsequently. Therefore, the properties of Ramshubhag were divided half and half between Ram Nagina, the father of plaintiffs and Ramjatan, the defendant No. 5. In view of these facts, the plaintiffs claim that in the properties of Rampukar as described in detail in the schedule-II of the plaint, they have got half share. The defendants No. 1 to 4 have got 1/3rd share and the defen