https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276029 The Court concluded that document Ex. I did not effect a partition but brought about a severance of status between the first plaintiff and his father. There was no evidence of undue influence, and the first plaintiff, despite mental incapacity, was recognized as a co-parcener. The plaintiffs were entitled to a division of properties and mesne profits. Each party was directed to bear their respective costs in the lower Court, with the appellants responsible for the respondents' costs in the appeal. en-us Fri, 31 Aug 1934 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Oct 2018 18:18:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276029 The Court concluded that document Ex. I did not effect a partition but brought about a severance of status between the first plaintiff and his father. There was no evidence of undue influence, and the first plaintiff, despite mental incapacity, was recognized as a co-parcener. The plaintiffs were entitled to a division of properties and mesne profits. Each party was directed to bear their respective costs in the lower Court, with the appellants responsible for the respondents' costs in the appeal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 31 Aug 1934 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276029