1. This and the connected Appeal No. 407 of 1913 arise out of a suit for partition, brought by the son and grandson of Pranpat Choube, defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 2 is the mother of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 3 is the wife of defendant No. 1 and mother of plaintiff No. 1. The defendant No. 4 is, according to the plaintiffs, the mistress of defendant No. 1. According to the defendant No. 1 she is his lawful wife. The plaintiff's main objection to the decree of the Court below is that one-eighth of the estate which has been allotted to the minor plaintiff, has been placed in charge of the defendant No. 1. The case is realjy a very sad one. The family appears to have been quite prosperous, possessed of a considerable amount of irumoveable property and a good deal of produce of the land. The plaintiff No. 1 comes into Court alleging that his father (the defendant No. 1) is an immoral man, in that he is keeping defendant No. 4 as his mistress. The Court below has considered this question and has come to the conclusion that there is no truth whatever in the allegation. The defendant No. 1 himself went into the witness-box and proved that the defendant No. 4 was his married wife. This was an important pdmission. If she was a mere mistress, he could never hereafter deny that the lady was his wife. The lady appears to be of the sane caste and a person whom he could legally marry. A number of witnesses were produced to prove the marriage, and the uncle of the lady deposed that he paid the expenses. The defendant No. 2, an old lady, proved that the marriage did take place. We entirely agree with the finding of the Court below that the defendant No. 4 is not the mistress but is the married wife of the defendant No. 1. It is an admitted fact that one Mohar Dat (the father-in-law of the plaintiff No. 1) was indebted to defendant No. 1 on a bond, that this bond was handed back by the plaintiff No. 1 to his father-in-law with an endorsenment of payment. The Court has found in another suit that this was a dishonest transaction between the plaintiff No. 1 and the father-in-law, and the latter was made responsible for the bond. Plaintiff No. 1 is at present about 23 years of age, and it seems pretty clear that the present suit is really brought at the instigation of Mohar Dat with the probable result that his son-in-law and his son-in-law's family will be ruined. Against the finding of the Court below of the legal right of the plaintiff No. 1 to have partition, no exception can be taken and we are reluctantly constrained to hold that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for partition. Under the circumstances we think that it would be most undesirable that his son's share should be placed in his charge. The son's share will, of course, remain in charge of defendant No. 1 who will hold it on behalf of the minor plaintiff.
2. In the connected appeal it is alleged, first, that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim partition. As already stated this position cannot be supported. It is next said that Musammat Dip Kali is entitled to a share on partition. This is against the ruling in Sheo Narain v. Janki Prasad 16 Ind. Cas. 88 : 34 A. 505 : 9 A.L.J. 749. It is lastly contended that one of the villages was purchased with money which belonged to Musammat Dip Kali. We entirely agree with the view taken by the Court below upon this point. The result is that both, appeals fail.
3. We accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.