2. Against part decree, the plaintiff has filed First Appeal No.208 of 1974 whereas against the other part decree, the defendant no.4 has filed First Appeal No.185 of 1974.

3. The plaintiffs-appellants of First Appeal No.208 of 1974 filed Partition Suit No.23 of 1969/131 of 1973 claiming partition of Schedule I and II property to the extent of 4/9th share.

4. The plaintiffs claimed the aforesaid relief alleging that Baldeo Jha was the father of plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.1 and husband of defendant no.4. Father was karta of the joint family which owned and possessed of a residential house and 3.82 acres of agricultural fertile lands which used to yield enough income. Out of the savings of the said property, the family purchased other properties. The plaintiff no.1 entered into service and was sending money orders to his father, Baldeo Jha. Some of the family properties were also acquired by the earnings of the plaintiff no.1. The ancestral property is mentioned in Schedule I whereas the acquired properties are mentioned in Schedule II of the plaint. Some of the properties are in the name of the different members of the family including the defendant no.4 who is mother of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 but all the properties are joint family properties. The defendant no.1 married an Assami girl and, therefore, the plaintiff separated in mess and business from defendant no.1 in March, 1959. Thereafter, the plaintiff has also acquired some properties with which the defendants have got no concern. The wife of defendant no.1 won over the defendant no.4 and Baldeo Jha. Baldeo Jha later on fell ill in 1963 and in January, 1963 itself, he lost his memory and died unconscious. There had been no partition by metes and bounds. The plaintiffs demanded partition but the defendants refused. Hence, the suit was filed.

5. The defendants filed joint contesting written statement alleging that the suit is bad for partial partition as Schedule B of the supplementary written statement was not included in the suit. The plaintiffs included many properties which are not the joint family properties. The ancestral land measuring 3.82 acres was not fertile and no land was acquired out of the income of the ancestral land. According to the contesting defendants, Baldeo Jha was himself in service and he acquired the lands in his own name and in the name of plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.1 out of his own earnings. Baldeo Jha kept the lands acquired by him separately and was appropriating exclusively the usufruct of the same. The defendant no.4, Jamuna Ojhain also purchased lands out of her koshal funds in her own name which is herself acquired properties. No property was purchased out of earning of the plaintiff no.1 who entered into police service in the year 1945 and his earning was not sufficient to meet his own expenses including his wife and children.

6. The further case of the contesting defendant is that there is no unity of title and possession regarding the Schedule I and II properties rather because of misbehaviour of the plaintiff no.1 with Baldeo Jha in the year 1959, Baldeo Jha made a family arrangement with consent of plaintiffs and defendants to avoid further trouble. In October 1959, there was complete severance of status and division of properties. The plaintiff no.1 and defendant no.1 were given half share in the properties described in Schedule B and B(1) of the written statement. Baldeo Jha and his wife i.e., defendant no.4 did not take any share in the ancestral properties although, they were entitled for 1/4th share. They kept their self-acquired properties for them which are described in Schedule C and D of the written statement. According to the family arrangement, t