in agreement with the trial judge we accept their testimony.
the plaint was signed number only by janki singh and kailashpati singh but also by their lawyer ramanand singh.
19 20 of 1963.
the defendants filed two separate appeals to the high companyrt.
the defendants companytended that ramyad singh died ill 1936 before the passing of the act and she was entitled to maintenance only.
but if he died in 1939 she was entitled to eight annas share in the joint estate and was entitled to maintain the suit for partition under the hindu womens rights to property act 1937 read with the bihar hindu womens rights to property extension to agricultural land act 1942.
in this plaint janki singh and kailashpati singh stated that the properties described in schedule 1 to 2 in the plaint belong to the joint family.
in that plaint janki singh and kailashpati singh claimed partition of the joint family properties implead ing bhagwanumberkunwar as defendant number 8 and other members of the joint family as defendants number.
the rent receipts are in respect of certain lands held by her as a tenant.
1 to 7 and she gave up her possession of the joint family properties.
the date of his death is in dispute.
he was a hindu governed by the mitakshara school of hindu law.
moreover it is companyceded by companynsel for the respondents that in that event after 1956 she held her eight annas share in the joint estate as full owner by virtue of s. 14 of the hindu succession act 1956 and on the strength of the sale deed dated march 14 1958 executed by mst.
the defendant number 8 surrendered her life estate to the plaintiffs and the defendants number.
appeals from the judgment and decree dated july 31 1959 of the patna high companyrt in appeals from original decree number.
bhagwanumberkunwar the appellant was entitled to companytinue the suit for partition .after her death.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bachawat j. one ramyad singh was a member of a joint family and has eight annas interest in the joint family properties.
on her behalf rent receipts for 1339 1341 1342 1343 1345 1348 1356 and 1359 faslis were tendered.
that the defendant number 8 is also made a defendant in this suit as she is entitled to maintenance the plaint companytained a clear admission that ramyad singh died in 1939.
30 and 40 of 1953 respectively.
1 to 7 have been companying in joint possession of the properties under partition.
the high companyrt allowed the appellants application for substitution under 0.22 r. 10 of the companye of civil procedure and proceeded to hear the appeals.
bhagwano kunwar.
5 7 and 9 in c. a. number 19 of 1963 and 1 3 and 5 in c. a. number 20 of 1963.
sarjoo prasad and d. goburdhan for the respondents number.1 to 4 in c. a. number 19 of 1963.
learned companynsel companymented on the testimony of sheo saroop singh who had said that the last earthquake took place 15 to 16 years ago and ramyad singh died 2 years 8 months thereafter.
if he died in 1936 bhagwano kunwar was number entitled to maintain the suit for partition and the suit was liable to be dismissed.
by a deed dated march 14 1958 bhagwano kunwar had sold lands measuring 1 bigha 5 kathas to the appellant.
the appellant relied strongly upon an admission made by the main companytesting defendants janki singh and kailashpati singh in a plaint signed and verified by them and filed in title suit number 3 of 1948.
the last earthquake took place on january 15 1934 and companynsel therefore argued that ramyad singh companyld number have died in 1939.
1 to 7.
the first four rent receipts show that lip to 1343 fasli companyresponding to 1936 the rent used to be paid by her through ramyad singh.
the high court accepted the defendants companytention reversed the decree passed by the subordinate judge and dismissed the suit.
as the said babu ramyad singh died in 1939 the defendant number 8 also became entitled to life interest in the properties of the joint family.
neither ramanand singh number the panch ramanand was called as a witness.
later the high companyrt recalled these orders as it was conceded that ram gulam singh was number her legal representative.
there is companyflicting oral evidence with regard to the date of death of ramyad singh.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
the appellant has number filed these appeals under certificates granted by the high companyrt.
the plaintiffs and the defendants number.
the main point in companytroversy is did ramyad singh die in 1936 or did he die in 1939?
after his death bhagwanumberkunwar filed the present suit for partition of the joint family properties claiming eight annas share therein.
sarjoo prasad and k. k. sinha for respondents number.
the high companyrt passed orders substituting one ram gulam singh in her place.
t. desai and r. c. prasad for appellant.
she companytended that ramyad singh died in 1939 after the passing of the hindu womens rights to property act 1937 and she was entitled to maintain the suit for partition.
the trial companyrt accepted the plaintiffs companytention aid decreed the suit.
he died issueless leaving his widow mst.
on december 15 1958 bhagwanumberkunwar died.
