P. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) - Plaintiffs are the appellants against a reversing decision in a suit for partition.

( 2 ) BRUNDABAN Biswal and Sadhu Biswal are admittedly two brothers. Defendants 5 and 6 are the sons of Brundaban. There is no dispute that Sadhu had a son named Budhu who is dead and defendants 1 to 4 are the heirs of late Budhu. Plaintiffs claim that plaintiff No. 2 mandodari is the widow of Sadhu and plaintiff no. 1 Panu is their son. Defendant No. 7 Suka is admittedly daughter of Sadhu. According to the plaintiffs case, 'a' and 'b' Schedule properties were the ancestral properties of brundaban and Sadhu, whereas 'c and 'd' schedule properties are the joint family properties belonging to the branch of Sadhu alone: plaintiffs claim l/6th share each in respect of 'a' and 'b' Schedule properties and l/3rd share each in respect of 'c" and 'd' Schedule properties.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 5 and 6 remained ex parte. Defendants 1 to 4 and 7 filed joint written statement. According to their case, Budhu is the son of Sadhu through Nadia. It is further claimed by them that Mandodari (plaintiff. No. 2) was not the legally married wife of Sadhu, but was the kept of Sadhu and Panu' (plainti