their death, the plaintiffs and defendant have jointly inherited all the movable and immovable properties of their ancestors. The R.S. Record of right was prepared in the names of Kaila Oraon, Dedo Oraon, Mosomat Khelo Orain, Jaura Oraon, Maya Oraon, Jatru Oraon, Jhuja Oraon, who were the common ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendant. She also submits that it was stated that Mahli Oraon, Maya Oraon and Khoja Oraon shown in the genealogical table in the line of Sumai Oraon, who died issueless so their shares in the suit property devolved in the shares of other heirs of Sumai Oraon and similarly the share of Dedo Oraon who also died issueless in the line of Samu Oraon also devolved in the shares of other heirs of Samu Oraon. On the point of the land mentioned in Scheduled-A of the plaint or ancestral properties of both the parties, she submits that there is unity of title and possession of the plaintiffs and defendant over the suit land and the said property had never been partitioned by metes and bounds and the parties are cultivating the suit land according to their convenience. She further submits that the plaintiffs are entitled for half share in the suit properties mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint since the major portion of the suit property are being possessed and cultivated by the defendant. Whenever the plaintiffs demanded the partition of the suit land, the same was refused by the defendant on various pretext and ultimately on 15.05.1996 the defendant bluntly refused to give any share in the suit land and, therefore, partition suit was filed. She further submits that both the learned courts failed to consider that the suit property are joint ancestral property of both the parties. She also submits that unless a division is there amongst the co-sharers, the property of the Hindu family remains joint and in that view of the matter, the learned trial court as well as the appellate
