2. The plaintiffs appellants filed the aforesaid Title Suit No. 267 of 1972/ 342 of 1974 claiming partition to the extent of 1/3rd share on the ground that the suit property belonged to their ancestor Kewal Mahto, who died leaving behind Darbari Mahto, Deodutt Mahto, Jadu Mahto and Raghunandan Mahto. These brothers died in the state of jointness. Deodutt Mahto died issueless. The parties were separate in mess and cultivation according to their convenience since about 30 – 35 years before but there had been no partition by metes and bounds. Recently the plaintiff demanded partition of the entire property measuring about 139 bighas of land but the defendants refused. The plaintiffs accordingly, claimed 1/3rd share in the suit property. According to the plaintiffs they represent branch of Raghunandan Mahto, whereas the defendants represent the branch of Darbari Mahto and Jadu Mahto. It is stated that the co-sharers have transferred some of the suit lands, therefore, those lands may be allotted to their respective takhtas.

3. A genealogy has been given at the foot of the plaint. From perusal of the said genealogy it appears that Kewal Mahto had two wives. From the first wife he had two sons namely Darbari Mahto and Devdutt Mahto. From the second wife he got two sons namely Jadu Mahto and Raghunandan Mahto. Darbari Mahto had four sons namely Harihar, Brijraj, Lal Bihari and Sukhraj. Harihar Mahto has a son Taraman who is defendant No.1. The son of defendant No.1 namely Darogee is defendant No.3, whereas the son of defendant No.3 is defendant No.4. Brijraj had a son Babulal who is defendant No.3. Lal Bihari had two sons Inarman (defendant No.5) and Sunarman (defendant No.6). The sons of defendant No.5 and defendant No.6 are defendant No.39 and defendant No.9 respectively. Sukhraj has two daughters who are defendant Nos. 7 and 8. Jadu Mahto had 5 sons namely Dhuri, Dhurandhar, Raman, Saman and Jhaman. Out of them Saman died issuless. The sons and grandsons of Dhuri are defendant Nos.10, 11, 37 and 38. The sons and grandsons of Dhurandhar are defendant No.12 to 21. Likewise the sons and grandsons of Raman are defendant Nos. 31 to 36. The sons and grandsons of Jhaman are defendant Nos. 22, 24 to 30. Raghunandan Mahto died leaving behind only son Munshi Mahto. This Munshi Mahto died leaving behind four sons namely Surajman, Bishwanath (plaintiff No.1), Durgalal (plaintiff No.2) and Lalbabu. The sons of Bishwanath plaintiff No.1 are the other plaintiffs. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 to 10 filed separate contesting written statement. It may be mentioned here that these contesting defendants represent the branch of Darbari Mahto. The defendant Nos. 5, 22 to 24, 31 and 32 who are the branch of Jadu Mahto have filed supporting written statement. According to the contesting defendants the property had already been partitioned by metes and bounds in the year 1919 amongst Darbari Mahto, Deodutt Mahto, Raghunandan Mahto and sons of Jadu Mahto as Jadu Mahto died by that time. The said partition was affected through Panchayati and all the Panches signed on the same. The sons of Darbari Mahto, Raghunandan Mahto and also Jadu Mahto have even been partitioned themselves inter se. Since Deodutt Mahto had no issue he gifted all his properties to Dhuri Mahto by registered deed of gift in 1923 and delivered possession thereof. This registered gift deed became an eyesore. Besides taking various other legal plea, the contesting defendants also alleged that the plaintiffs have not included the family property of Nepal which was allotted to Raghunandan Mahto in the partition of the year 1919 therefore, the suit is bad for parti