Oral partition among members of a Hindu joint family is valid and can be proved by evidence.

S.N. Saxena, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Sri V. N. Singh, Addl. Civil Judge, Allahabad, Civil Appeal No. 272 of 1978 arising out of regular Suit No. 457 of 1973. The decision of the lower appellate Court is dated 29-3-1979.

2. Plaintiff, Kanhaiya Lal, had instituted the aforesaid regular suit for partition of his l/4th share in house No. 255 situate in Old Katra, Allahabad and for possession upon the share allotted to him as a result of the partition decree. The Defendants are co-owners of the disputed property. The Plaintiff has given a pedigree in para 1 of his plaint which is as follows:

Chhedi Lal
Mata Badal		Ram Das			Lakshman Das
Kanhaiya Lal	Madan Gopal	Sita Ram	Rani Devi	Shakuntala Devi	Kamla Devi	Sumitra Devi

3. According to the Plaintiff, a family settlement had taken place amongst Chhedi Lal, his sons and other members of his family which was reduced to writing also on 21-4-1934. It was got registered with Sub-Registrar, Allahabad on 26-4-1934. Mata Badal and his sons as a result thereof became the owners of the house property detailed in the map attached with' the plaint and the Plaintiff had got l/4th share therein. During the life time of Mata Badal, there had been a mutual partition of the disputed house owned by him and his three sons and the rest of the articles had remained joint Originally he had pleaded that his share was 2/7th in the house and 1/7th in the rest of the property but he got the 11th para of the plaint amended and pleaded that. He claimed only l/4th share in the property in dispute. He requested the Defendants a number of times for partition and possession of his share but in vain, hence the suit.

4. The Defendants, besides other pleas, pleaded that partition had already taken place of the disputed property and the Plaintiff was in exclusive possession of his share. The house property belonging to Mata Badal and his sons was numbered as 255. They further pleaded that Plaintiff Kanhaiya Lal and Defendant No. 1 Madan Gopal had completely separated their shares in the house' and the suit in view of the partition, which had already taken place, was not maintainable. Mata Badal allegedly had executed a will on 24-11-70 according to which he had given his entire 1/4th share to Defendants No. 3 to 6 who were his daughters. The Plaintiff, therefore, could not get 2/7th and l/4th share, the claim for which, as mentioned above however, had been given up by the Plaintiff.

5. The learned Munsif, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, arrived at the conclusion that the partition of the disputed property had already taken place, and therefore, it could not be ordered again. He, therefore, dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the Plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No. 272 of 1978 which, as mentioned above, was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge. He agreed with the finding given by the learned Munsif that partition had already taken place and, therefore, the suit for partition again was not maintainable. The Plaintiff, thereafter, preferred this. Second Appeal.

6. It was vehemently argued for the Appellants that the Courts below " bad not correctly read the evidence on the record and had returned a wrong finding that mutual partition had already taken place between the co-owners' of the property in dispute and therefore, this appeal was liable to be allowed.

7. The substantial question of law which finds place at. page 3 of the memorandum of the second appeal reads as follows:

Whether mere legal partition in a joint Hindu family i.e. disruption of Joint-status at au earlier stags, can be proved by a party, to bar division by meets and bounds.

8. Learned counsel for the Respondents argued that as a matter of fact the substantial question of law framed by the learned