Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.24 seconds)

Raghunath Yadav vs Sukhdeo Mahto on 28 February, 2023

14. He further relied the judgement of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of " Smt. Maina Devi @ Mainabati Bageria and Another V. Mohammaed Asagar" 1997 (2) PLJR 749 and submits that in this judgment the learned Single Judge held that merely when the piece of property is used for convenience it cannot be said that partition is there. He referred para 11 and 13 of the said judgment which reads as under:-
Jharkhand High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document

Soma Oraon vs Kaila Oraon on 4 January, 2023

9. The learned appellate court has also framed separate issue at paragraph no.8 of the judgment and decided the appeal. The learned appellate court after perusal of Exts.I, B and B/1 found that in Khata No.16, area of land mentioned in column no.14 are not in equal distribution, whereas in column no.17 it has been specifically stated that the land of Khata No.16 are separately hold and possessed by the ancestors of the defendant and appellant. On perusal of Khatian Exts.B and B/1, the learned appellate court found that no land was given to the ancestors of the defendant in another village and considering this aspect of the matter, the learned appellate court has come to the conclusion that there is complete partition amongst the ancestors of the defendant and appellant in the year 1935. The point of recording of Kabjawari, as relied by Mrs. Nivedita Kundu, learned counsel for the appellant has already been answered by the learned appellate court considering Khatian at Ext.1, wherein specific word has not 9 Second Appeal No. 210 of 2004 been mentioned that the Khata remained joint. Thus, the judgment relied by Mrs. Nivedita Kundu in Smt. Maina Devi @ Mainabati Bageria (supra) is not helping the appellant.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document
1