Jharkhand High Court
Balmati Debi vs Budhu Devi on 18 December, 2018
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No.628 of 2016
1. Balmati Debi
2. Gyanchand Sahu
3. Lilawati Debi
4. Sudeshwar Sahu ...... Appellants
Versus
Budhu Devi ...... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-----
For the Appellants : Mr.Rohit Roy, Advocate
Mr.Tarun Kr. Mahato, Advocate
For the Respondent :
-----
07/Dated: 18/12/2018
I.A. No.8202 of 2018
The instant interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 4 days in preferring the present appeal.
The reason for delay has been explained in paragraph-3 onwards.
In view of the reason stated in the I.A., I.A. No.8202 of 2018 is allowed and disposed of. Delay of 4 days in preferring the present appeal is hereby condoned.
S.A. No.628 of 2016Heard learned counsel for the appellants. Appellants are original defendants.
Plaintiff and defendants are own sisters. Defendant No.1 is eldest one, defendant No.2 is second in number and plaintiff is youngest sister. Genealogy starts from Sudhu Teli. Sudhu Teli had two sons, namely, Deonath Teli and Chamar Teli. Chamar Teli died issueless, so only surviving branch for the flow of the property was headed by Deonath Teli. Deonath Teli had one son, namely, Guju Sahu. Dispute starts with Guju Sahu. Sukwaro Devi is wife of Guju Sahu. Plaintiff and defendants are daughters of Guju Sahu.
As per pleading, it appears that Guju Sahu had gifted the property to defendant No.2 vide registered Gift Deed No.2245 of 1988. The gift property is plot Nos.3625, 3636, 3640, 3641, 3644, 3645, 2494, 4263 and 2288 having total area of 4.01 acres.
The case as set out by the plaintiff in the suit was that after the death of Gaju Sahu, mother and three daughters are entitled for 1/4th share as per the law of inheritance.
The gift deed made in the year 1988 by the father had not been disputed by the plaintiff but subsequent deed dated 09.12.1999, which is deed of gift had been questioned and declaration had been sought as null and void. The suit had been instituted for partition.
The trial court had framed various issues and after evaluating the evidence available on record had held that the gift deed No. 666 dated 13.04.1999 in favour of defendant No.1 is effective only to the extent of share of Sukwaro Devi (mother of the parties). So far as, gift deed dated 09.12.1999 had been declared null and void being beyond the share of the Sukwaro Devi (mother).
On the basis of above finding and decision, the suit had been allowed by giving 1/3rd share to each of the parties to the suit.
Being aggrieved, defendant had preferred an appeal being Partition Appeal No.25 of 2009, claiming property of father beyond his share and the share of mother through impugned deed as mentioned above.
Appellate court had adopted the issues framed by the trial court. After re-evaluating the evidence available on record, the appellate court had also given finding that the impugned sale deed contains beyond the share of Sukwaro Devi (mother). Thus, the appeal had been dismissed.
From the discussion above, it is evident that there is concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below, rather there is no dispute between the parties as it appears from the perusal of fact itself. There is no disputed question of fact involved in the present appeal neither there is any legal issue involved. The only point has been taken before this Court is regarding limitation.
It is well settled principle of law that limitation applies vis a vis cause of action. In the suit for partition, limitation does not apply. There is no period of limitation prescribed also.
In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Shahid/