JUDGMENT :

P.C. Misra, J. - Facts : Widow of one branch whose husband died in 1912 (prior to 1937 Act) executed a Sevasamarpanpatra in favour of 3 persons of other branches in respect of her share of properties and also properties belonging to the deity-After describing the facts and findings of Courts below, it is held :

The true notion of an undivided mitakshara family is that no individual member thereof can predict his share in the joint family properties while the family remains undivided as the shares of the cosharers are liable to fluctuation, depending upon the births and deaths of the family. Once the joint status is disrupted the share of the coparceners get defined, no matter whether actual division of the properties by metes and bounds is made pursuant thereto. Once the shares are defined either by agreement between the parties or otherwise the joint status gets severed. The parties may divide the properties by metes and bounds or they may continue to live together and enjoy the properties as before after the severance of status. Whether they divided the properties by metes and bounds or continued to enjoy the same jointly, it reflects only the mode of enjoyment, but the property thereafter ceases to be joint family property, and the parties so long as they do not divide the property by metes and bounds and remain in joint enjoyment they become tenants in common. No evidence has been adduced by the contesting defendants that after ascertainment of their individual shares, the corpus of the properties was divided by metes and bounds. Thus what the learned trial Court held was that there was a severance of joint status amongst the parties though there was no partition of the properties by metes and bounds. The said finding of the learned trial Court is hereby confirmed.

7. In the last settlement, the record of rights mentioned the share of Gouri to be 1/6th. That Gouri had 1 /6th share in the family properties has not been disputed by either of the parties. Even though Gouri could not be an absolute owner of the properties left behind by her husband, she could inherit her husband's share if her husband was separate from others, as his heir. Her husband is said to have died in the year 1912, and her husband's brother, in all probabilities was separate from her husband. He and his wife (Uma) both are said to have died in the year 1936. Thus even if Gouri was a pre-1937 widow, she could inherit the properties of her separated husband as his only surviving heir, though she would be a limited owner as commonly understood under the Hindu Law. Thus the argument that was advanced for the first time in this Court in the First Appeal that Gouri being a pre-1937 widow, the mere mention of share against her name in the record of rights would not clothe her with title cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is true in law that the settlement entries by itself neither create nor extinguish title and in that sense it cannot be regarded as a document of title. But Courts attach importance to the entries in the record of rights and at times such entries taken to be the basis of title, in the absence of any title deed specially when the record of rights is allowed to stand for a pretty long time and has been acted upon by the parties who are adversely affected by such entries. In the present case neither of the parties has challenged the settlement entries made in respect of Gouri as incorrect. On the other hand, the Sevasamarpana Patra executed by Gouri has been relied upon by the contesting defendants by virtue of which they claim to be entitled to the share of Gouri. The plaintiffs did not challenge the Sevasamarpana Patra on the ground that Gouri had no interest at all in the family properties though the said document was challenged on various other grounds which we shall deal with later on. We would, therefore, proceed on the basis that Gouri had six annas interest in the family properties and worked out ri