RAM NANDAN PRASAD, J

1. This appeal arises out a suit for partition. The appellant Mobarak Hussain Khan was one of the defendants. The parties to the suit are the decendants of the Chhedi Khan. Happily, there is no dispute regarding the relationship of the parties and also as regards the sequence of death of some of the decendents of Chhedi Khan. There was, however, dispute regarding the quantum of share of the parties in the ancestral property and this led to the filing if the suit. The appellant's case is that the shares allotted by the trial court are not in accordance with law. Hence this appeal.

2. The relationship between the parties is indicated by the following genealogical table:-

"The admitted case of the parties is that during the time of the survey and settlement operations Imam Khan and Kallu Khan, the two sons of Chhedi Khan, jointly acquired land in village Konara under Khata No.66, P.S. Barhi, District Hazaribagh; the details of the these land are given in Schedule-"A" of the plaint. The acquisitions were in the names of the sons of Imam Khan and Kallu Khan i.e. Alam Khan Daulat Khan and Suleman Khan one share and Ismail and Sharif one Share. All these recorded tenants remained in joint possession of the lands but there was separate cultivation by way of convenience. It is also the position that fist Sharif Khan died issueless and thereafter Alam Khan died consequent upon which Alam' son Biltu (plaintiff), Daulat. Sulemen and Ismail remained in joint possession of the properties. Sometime later Ismail died issueless as a result of which the branch of Kallu Khan become extinct and the entire joint properties devolved upon the decendants of Imam Khan who remained in joint possession and cultivation. However, prior to has death, Ismail Khan, alongwith the plaintiffs' Biltu Khan and Daulat and Suleman Khan sold some of the joint family lands to different persons who got tile and possession in respect of the same. After Ismail Khan, the next to die was Daulat Khan and some year later Suleman Khan also died".

3. The plaintiffs' Biltu alias Takki Khan is the son of Alam Khan and the three sons of Daulat i.e. Ushman, Sikandar and Mubarak (appellant here) are defendants no.1 to 3 and Daulat's daughter Ashgari Kahtoon is defendant no.4. Defendants no.5 to 17 are decendants of the sons and daughters of Daulat Khan. The two sisters of the plaintiffs' Bibi Soheran and Bibi Sogra are defendants No.18 & 19. Daulats' wife Safida Khatoon was defendants no.20. In this appeal, the parties have been arrainged in like manner except that defendant No.3 is the appellant and the plaintiff and his two sisters have been made respondent No.1 to 3 while respondents No.4 to 19 are the other defendants. Daulats' widow Shafidan was respondent No.20 in this appeal but the she died during the pendency and her name was been expunged. It appears the plaintiff Biltu Khan also died during the pendency of the appeal and his heirs have been substituted as respondent No. 1 to 1/h

4. In the court below defendants no.18 Bibi Saberan (sister of the plaintiff) filed a written statement adopting the case of the plaintiff. The real contest was put forward by defendant No.3 Mubarak Hussain Khan (appellant) and he filed a detailed written statement. His brother Sikandar Khan defendant No.2 filed a written statement adopting the case put forward by Mubark Hussain Khan. On be half of the minor grand children of Daulat Khan a guardian-ad litem was appointed by the court and he filed a formal written statement. The other defendants do not appear to have put in any written statement form their side.

5. In paragraphs 1 to 8 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated the facts relating to the relationship between the parties (genealogical table), the details of the joint family properties and about the deaths of the sons of Imam Khan and Kallu Khan. He has stated that first Sharif Khan died issueless and thereafter Alam Khan died and the joint family properties ca