RANCHI, India, Jan. 27 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Jan. 5:

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.

2. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents.

3. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.05.2002 (decree signed on 07.06.2002) passed by the learned Additinoal District Judge, Singhbhum (East), Jamshedpur in Title Appeal No. 34 of 1987 dismissing the cross-appeal filed by the plaintiffs in the said appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.05.1987/12.06.1987 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-III, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 65/75 of 1985-86.

4. The records of the case reveal that the original plaintiff was Lakshman Sharma and the defendant no. 1, namely, Ram Chandra Sharma was his full brother.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the main contesting defendant was defendant no. 1 and other defendants were also the family members and defendant nos. 12 and 13 were proforma defendants.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the substantial question of law framed in this case revolves around Holding No. 94. He submits that Holding No. 94 was not included in the Schedule of the plaint, but the learned trial court had included Holding No. 94 while passing the decree regarding partition of the property and half share each with respect to Holding No. 94 was allotted to the original plaintiff and the defendant no. 1. The learned counsel submits that on account of inclusion of Holding No. 94 in the partition at the instance of defendant no. 1, the plaintiffs had filed cross-objection/cross-appeal before the learned 1st appellate court. The defendants had also filed appeal before the learned 1st appellate court who were aggrieved by the order of partition. He submits that the appeal of the defendant no. 1 as well as the crossobjection were dismissed by the learned 1st appellate court. Consequently, the plaintiffs have filed his Second Appeal and the defendant no. 1/their legal heirs had also filed Cross Objection No. 03 of 2005 which stood dismissed for default vide order dated 08.09.2022.

7. The learned counsel has then referred to the substantial question of law framed in this case vide order dated 21.04.2005 which is quoted as under: -

"Whether in absence of any specific pleading by the defendants that the property of Sakchi Market (Holding No. 94) and the land of Mouza Gadra were purchased out of the joint fund of the plaintiffs and the defendants and without any proof on record on such joint acquisition, the findings of the Courts below regarding the jointness of the said property are vitiated in law?"

8. The learned counsel submits that Holding No. 94 was standing in the name of the original plaintiff, namely, Lakshman Sharma and since it was his self-acquired property it was not included in the schedule of the plaint. He submits that the defendant no. 1 in the written statement had asserted in paragraph 21 and 22 that Lakshman Sharma had not whispered a word with respect to Holding No. 94 which was once acquired by defendant in the name of K. Mahapatro (nephew of the defendant no. 1 and son of his elder brother, namely, Markandya Patro) and subsequently it was acquired in the name of the original plaintiff by virtue of registered sale deed dated 12.08.1968. In paragraph 22 of the written statement, the defendant no. 1 has asserted that the defendant no. 1 first acquired the Shop No. 94 of Sakchi Bazar in the name of his nephew K. Mahapatro and one Kumar Bar Parida for 5 years by means of registered deed dated 17.11.1962.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=JWh84WYVV%2BM86K4sXzCHn%2FKrTafNgXcIsBAvQZHi1hgjqOapwf28R9g5ZmZhl%2Bc1&caseno=SA/68/2002&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010134922002&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.