The widow became the absolute owner of the property in view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, entitling the plaintiffs to partition.

1. This First Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.1983 passed by learned 4th Additional Subordinate Judge, Bettiah, West Champaran in title suit No.132 of 1976/34 of 1982 whereby the learned court below dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for partition to the extent of half share.

2. The plaintiffs-appellants filed the aforesaid suit claiming partition of half share in the suit property alleging that Bhola Singh had two sons namely Damodar Singh and Dhanurdhur Singh. Damodar Singh had a son Prayag Singh who had three sons. The descendants of this Prayag Singh are the defendants 1st set. The defendants 2nd set are the purchasers from them. Dhanurdhur Singh had a daughter, Rampyari Kuer who was original plaintiff. The further case is that there was separation in mess and residence but there was jointness with regard to the suit property. Because there was no other issue of Dhanurdhur Singh, Rampyari Devi was helping her father and mother. Dhanurdhur died in or about the year 1946 leaving behind his widow and the daughter. On the death of Dhanurdhur, his share devolved on the widow who also died in 1957 leaving behind only daughter, the plaintiff, Rampyari Kuer. The defendant Nos.1, 8 and 9 were entrusted the cultivation of the disputed properties on behalf of the plaintiff also. Subsequently, the defendants started trouble and they also sold some of the properties to various persons who have been added as defendants 2nd set. The plaintiffs demanded partition but they refused, therefore, the suit was filed.

3. The defendant Nos.1 to 3, 8, 9 and 10 appeared and filed a contesting written statement. The other defendants neither appeared nor contested the suit. Their main defence is that Dhanurdhur Singh died in the year 1943 in jointness with Prayag Singh. There was no separate cultivation between them. The widow of Dhanurdhur Singh died in the year 1937, therefore, there is no question of devolving the share of Dhanurdhur Singh on his widow arises. However, Prayag Singh during his lifetime had partitioned all the properties in suit in the year 1960 and according to that partition, three sons came in possession of their separate allotted lands. Their names were mutated accordingly. On 03.07.1967, a paper was prepared and the parties also signed. Their mother also signed. Since then, they were enjoying the property separately. The plaintiffs have got no title and interest over the suit property. Even if they have title then also the plaintiffs were ousted and the defendants prescribed title by adverse possession.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the learned court below framed various issues including issue Nos.4 and 5 which relates to the death of widow of Dhanurdhur Singh. Issue No.5 relates to whether Dhanurdhur Singh and Prayag Singh were separate. Issue No.6 was with respect to ouster and adverse possession.

5. The learned court below on the basis of the materials on record came to the conclusion that Dhanurdhur Singh died in the year 1946 and his wife Godma Devi died during the lifetime of Dhanurdhur Singh. The court below also recorded the finding that the defendants are in possession, therefore, even if the plaintiffs had any title, it is barred by ouster and adverse possession and accordingly, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit.

6. The learned counsel, Abhay Bhushan Sinha appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the learned court below has misread and misinterpreted, Exhibit 2, the birth and death Register which is public document and wrongly held that wife of Dhanurdhur Singh died during lifetime of Dhanurdhur Singh. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned court below has wrongly held that the plaintiffs have got no right, title and interest because of the fact that Godma Devi died during lifetime of Dhanurdhur Singh and even if the plaintiffs had title, it is barred by ouster and adverse possession because the plai