MUNGESHWAR SAHOO, J.:–The First Appeal No.217 of 2000 has been filed by defendant no.4 alone against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 20.09.1999 passed by Sri Mahatam Prasad, Sub Judge IX, Patna in Title Partition Suit No.99 of 1994 whereas First Appeal No.143 of 2001 has been filed by the defendant nos.5 to 8 only against the final decree passed in the aforesaid title partition suit. Since the parties are same and the learned counsels also are same in both the First Appeals and both the appeals arise out of the same partition suit, i.e., one against preliminary decree and the other against final decree, both are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. We shall consider first the First Appeal arising out of the preliminary decree, i.e., First Appeal No.217 of 2000. The plaintiffs-respondents filed aforesaid Title Partition Suit No.99 of 1994 alleging that late Ramjivan Singh had three sons namely late Bindeshwari Singh, Chandeshwari Prasad Singh, the defendant no.1 and late Singheshwari Prasad Singh. The genealogical table has been given at the foot of the plaint. The families of three brothers constitute joint Hindu family wherein late Bindeshwari Singh was the karta. All the three brothers were in Govt. service. The other two brothers who were also in Govt. service used to hand over their salary to the karta, Bindeshwari Singh. The said joint family owned and possessed the joint family property described in schedule II to the plaint. Singheshwari Prasad Singh died in 1983 while in service in the state of jointness leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. There was dispute in the joint family in 1984 and consequent thereupon, there was disruption in the family. Bindeshwari Singh, the karta himself prepared a chart of partition containing the description of the properties allotted to the branches of the three brothers. A copy of the same was given to each of the family which was annexed with the plaint as Annexure 1. After the said separation, defendants, 1st set, i.e., Chandeshwari Prasad Singh and his sons completely separated from the defendants, 2nd set but in spite of allotment of separate share, the plaintiff remained joint with defendants, 2nd set both in property and mess. The plaintiff nos.2 to 4 were immature.

3. The further case of the plaintiffs-respondents is that the father of defendants, 2nd set namely Bindeshwari Singh died in the year 1990 leaving behind the defendants, 2nd set. The partition affected by Bindeshwari Singh in the year 1984 was not signed by the parties and on the other hand, it required some necessary clarification and because of that matter always scuffle used to occur between the parties. To get rid of the said trouble, the parties sat together on 29.03.1992 in presence of two witnesses, Rambali Singh and Shakaldeo Singh and prepared a fresh memorandum of partition with certain changes, modification and clarification in the previous chart prepared in 1984. On 29.03.1992, a fresh memorandum of partition was written by Sri Rambali Singh. The plaintiff no.2 signed for himself and on behalf of all plaintiffs. The defendant no.1 signed for himself and on behalf of defendant nos.2 and 3. The defendant no.5 signed for himself and for defendant no.4 and 6 to 8. The said memorandum of partition is Annexure 2 to the plaint. After this, all the three branches completely separated. In the partition of the year 1992, the three branches were residing in holding no.9 in which there were altogether 6 rooms with verandah courtyard, kitchen. Out of 6 rooms, 2 rooms were in occupation of each branch. In Annexure 2, out of the said rooms, 5 rooms were allotted to defendants, 1st set and one room in the south east corner together with 3/4 kattha of land towards north east corner was allotted to the plaintiff. It was further settled that after necessary measurement of the cost of construction over 3/4 kattha land, it would be compensated to the defendants, 2nd set by the plaintif

Click Here to Read the rest of this document