ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.

1. Defendant-appellants Nos. 2, 3, 4 have filed instant appeal against the judgment dated 29.03.1978, preliminary decree dated 11.04.1978 passed by the Second Additional Sub-Judge, Siwan in connection with Partition Suit No. 66 of 1973 and 39 of 1976 decreeing the suit on contest, identifying 1/6th share of plaintiff-respondent 1st set with regard to properties Scheduled under 1 to 4 of the plaint, however, no order over cost.

2. Plaintiff-respondent 1st set filed Partition Suit asking for relief of declaring 02 Anna, 08 Pai share in the properties detailed under Schedule 1 to 4 of the plaint, cost of the suit, any other relief or reliefs which the plaintiffs are found entitled for and for that furnished a genealogical table wherefrom it is evident that Ram Sahai Rai was the common ancestor, who had two sons Hiraman Ram and Dalsingar Rai. Hiraman Rai had two sons Tilak Rai and Kuer Rai.

3. Dalsingar Rai had five sons Saudagar Singh, Shiva Govind Singh, Jai Govind Singh, Sajiwan Singh and Ram Nath Singh. Saudagar Singh had a son Dashrath Rai @ Bharat Rai. Shiva Govind had five sons Sitaram, Manbodh, Ganesh, Saryug, Chandeshwar. Sitaram had two sons Basdeo and Rambilas @ Rambilas. Saryug Rai had one son Ram Naresh, daughters Sundri and Sushila. Chandeshar, Ganesh, Manbodh happens to be issueless.

4. It has further been disclosed that even after death of Ram Sahai, his both sons as well as grandsons namely Tilak, Kuer, Dashrath, Shiva Govind, Jai Govind, Sajiwan and Ram Nath remained joint and in state of jointness, Hiraman, Dalsingar, Saudagar, Kuer (unmarried) died before the revisional survey and on account thereof, during course of survey operation, the lands were recorded in name of Tilak, Shiv Govind, Jai Govind, Sajiwan, Ram Nath, Dashrath @ Bharat. After revisional survey, Tilak, who was unmarried, Sanjiwan also died and accordingly, the shares of the branches of Hiraman Rai devolved upon remaining survivors namely Shiva Govind, Jai Govind, Ram Nath and Dashrath.

5. It has further been pleaded that in due course of time, there was partition in the family whereunder, Dashrath @ Bharat and Ram Nath remained joint while Shiva Govind and Jai Govind remained joint. Ram Nath Rai did in jointness with Dashrath @ Bharat and on account thereof, Dashrath @ Bharat Rai inherited the property allotted to the share of Ram Nath.

6. It has further been pleaded that Jai Govind died issueless in jointness with Shiva Govind and on account thereof, the properties having allotted to Jai Govind devolved upon Shiva Govind and, Shiva Govind and his five sons possessed the same continuing joint family. Shiva Govind and Sitaram died in jointness. After death of Shiva Govind and Sitaram, the properties came under possession of sons of Sitaram, wife of Sitaram, Manbodh, Ganesh, Saryug, Chandeshwar. It has further been stated that in state of jointness, Manboth, Saryug and Ganesh died and on account thereof, properties devolved upon their remaining heirs. It has further been disclosed that 12 Biggha, 13 Kattha, 08 Dhoor lands detailed under Schedule-1 of the plaint happen to be ancestral property while Khata No. 77 detailed under Schedule-2 of the plaint happens to be homestead land. Schedule-3 of the plaint contains the details of Sikami Lands possessed by joint family. Schedule-4 contains the detail of the land purchased by their forefathers.

7. It has further been disclosed that defendant Dashrath @ Bharat Rai has got 08 Anna share while defendant nos. 2 to 4 have got 02 Anna, 08 Pai share and in likewise manner, happens to be a share of plaintiffs as well as Defendant No. 5. It has further been disclosed that considering the conduct of the defendants hostile to the interest of plaintiffs, they asked for partition, which has been declined by them and on account thereof, cause of action arose for filing instant suit for partition. After completing other formalities, accordingly, suit has been filed.

8. Written Sta