Sumitra Ahir & Anr vs Most Geeta Devi & Ors on 11 June, 2018

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Jharkhand High Court

Sumitra Ahir & Anr vs Most Geeta Devi & Ors on 11 June, 2018

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    S.A. No.10 of 2016
Sumitra Ahir & Anr.                             ...... Appellants
                                      Versus
Most Geeta Devi & Ors.                         ...... Respondents
                           -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

-----

For the Appellants         : Mr.Amar Kr. Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents        :
                     -----
06/Dated: 11/06/2018
I.A. No.4601 of 2018

The present interlocutory application has been filed for ignoring the defect nos. 2 and 3 as pointed out by the office.

It has been submitted that respondent no.1 of the Title Appeal No.79 of 2012 had died on 07.11.2015 after passing of the judgment and decree under appeal and accordingly the legal heirs of respondent no.1 of the Title Appeal has been made as respondent no.1 to 6 in the present appeal.

In view of the above submission, defect nos. 2 and 3 are hereby ignored.

I.A. No.4601 of 2018 stands disposed of.

S.A. No.10 of 2016

Heard, learned counsel for the appellants. The Partition Suit No.37/1998 has been filed for partition of property.

Learned Trial Court has returned the findings that the parties of the suit have got unity on title of possession over the suit land and are entitled for their respective share.

Being aggrieved, defendants have preferred an appeal and the Appellate Court has reversed the finding of the Trial Court by holding therein that it is not safer to say that plaintiffs and defendants have got their unity of title over the property. Further, the Appellate Court even after recording this finding has confirmed the decree of the Trial Court wherein it has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

In view of the above circumstance, learned counsel for the appellants proposes following substantial questions of law and the same is being accepted by this Court.

a. Whether in view of the specific findings by the Lower Appellate Court that there is no unity of title over the suit property, the suit filed by the Plaintiffs claiming partition could have been decreed?

b. Whether the findings of the learned court of appeal below are vitiated due to misconstruing the mandatory Provision contained in order XLI Rule 31 C.P.C.?

Admit.

Call for the Lower Court Records.

Appellant is directed to take steps for service of notice upon the respondents by ordinary post for which requisites etc. must be filed within two weeks.

( Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court