Partition by metes and bounds can be inferred from separate residence, mess, cultivating possession, and transactions. Admissions in pleadings must be read as a whole and in context.

S. B. Sinha, J. - This first appeal by some of the defendants arises out of a judgment and decree dated 19.2.1977 passed by Shri Sardar Bhagat Singh Houra, VIIth Additional Sub• Judge Ranchi, in Title Suit no. 42/21 of 1972-76 whereby and whereunder the said learned court decreed the suit in part.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass.

3. The plaintiff claims his right, title and interest in respect of the property in suit which he allegedly acquired by reason of a deed of sale dated 10.7.1969 executed by one Rameshwar Singh.

4. According to the plaintiff, the said respondents properties originally belonged to Rameshwar Singh and Chamru Singh.

5. The Genealogy of the said family has been stated in the plaint which is as follows:

Bhola Singh

Abhaya Nath Singh Chamru Singh

Rameshwar Singh : Shanti Devi (Deft. no. 9)

Mahadeo Singh, Anup Singh Bigan Singh, Haru Singh, Jamadar Singh

(dead) (dead) (dead) (dead) (dead)

(Deft. No.8)

Jagpati Singh Rayast Singh

(Deft. no. 6) (Deft. no. 7)

Bhuneshwar Singh, Bissesar Singh, Dhaneshwar Singh Jageshwar Singh

(Deft. no. 1) (Deft. no. 2) (Deft. no. 3) (Deft. no. 4)

6. The plaintiff asserted that there has been a complete and effectual partition between Rameshwar Singh and Chamru Singh long before the revisional survey settlement. However, in the revisional survey, record of rights in the names of Rameshwar Singh and Chamru Singh was prepared and exclusive possession was noted against each plot in the remarks column of the Khatian. It has further been asserted that Ramesnwar Singh and Chamru Singh exercised individual possession as exclusive owner in respect of the properties shown in their respective possession in the record of rights and transferred parcel of lands out of their own share not only to stranger of the family but also inter se. The plaintiff further asserted that some disputes and differences having arisen, a suit, purported to have been filed by Rameshwar Singh along with defendants no. 6 to 8 being P. S. no. 81/382 of 1960-62, was instituted against the defendants of Chamru Singh wherein it was wrongly stated that there was no partition by metes and bounds between the branches of Chamru Singh and Rameshwar Singh. According to the plaintiff, the plaint of the suit was returned and the plaintiff, thereof did not take any step in the matter. The plaintiff has asserted that Rameshwar Singh, thereafter transferred the land described in Schedule-A of the plaint by virtue of the aforementioned sale deed dated 10.10.1969 for a consideration of Rs. 7500/- and delivered possession thereof to the plaintiff. In relation to the aforementioned lands a proceeding U/s 145 of the Cr. P. C. (Code of Criminal Procedure) was initiated which was decided against the plaintiff necessitating filing of the aforementioned suit.

7. The plaintiff in the suit prayed for a declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the lands in question described in Schedule-A except plot nos. 129, 137 and 138 of Khata no. 50 of village Gutua in respect whereof a decree for declaration of title and confirmation of possession was sought for and in the alternative prayer of the plaintiff was that if it would be found that there was no partition by metes and bounds between Rameshwar Singh and Chamru Singh, a preliminary decree of partition in respect of half share in the land described in Schedule-B be passed in favour of the plaintiff as a transferee of Rameshwar Singh and separate possession, after passing a final decree be delivered to him in respect of lands allotted to his share.

8. In the aforementioned suit the defendant no. 9 Shanti Devi filed a written statement and supported the case of the plaintiffs.

9. However, the contesting defendants nos. 1 to 5 and 8 filed a joint written statement inter-alia alleging therein that the suit is not maintainable in absence of Adhiraj Devi another widow of Rameshwar Singh as a party defendant. The said defendants further