RANCHI, India, Oct. 7 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Sept. 8:

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

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 08.08.2017 (decree sealed and signed on 21.08.2017) passed by learned District Judge-XV, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 44 of 2013 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants has been dismissed and the judgment dated 18.03.2013 (decree signed on 22.03.2013) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-V, Dhanbad in Partition Suit No. 107 of 1997 has been affirmed. The learned trial court had dismissed the suit. The suit was dismissed, the 1st appeal was also dismissed and the plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that both the learned courts have failed to consider that there is presumption of jointness with respect to joint family. He has also submitted that the plaintiffs had sought partition with respect to plot no. 224 area 8 decimal by asserting that the said property is the joint and Ijmal property of Madhusudan Singh Choudhary which was never partitioned by metes and bounds amongst the co-sharers and heirs of Late Madhusudan Singh Choudhary. He submits that other plots were partitioned, but this property was not partitioned and therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to 1/4th share in the suit property. The learned counsel has further submitted that the defendant nos. 3 to 5 had executed sale-deeds in favour of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 vide sale deed nos. 450 and 451 both dated 25.01.1977 and the sale-deeds were also challenged in the suit. The learned counsel has submitted that both the courts have not considered the aforesaid aspects of the matter and accordingly, substantial question of law be framed and decided.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that the suit was filed for the following reliefs: a) Preliminary decree for partition be passed regarding suit land. b) Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner be appointed for effecting partition of the plaintiff's 1/4th share i.e. 2 decimals of land. c) Decree of declaration may also be passed to the effect that sale deed No. 450 and 451 dated 25.01.77 executed by defendant No. 3 to 5 in favour of defendant No. 1 to 2 is void document.

5. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that plot no. 224 was recorded in the name of Madhusudan Singh Choudhary and the said land was possessed by him as landlord and after vesting, he filed return to the State of Bihar which included plot no. 224 also. He died leaving behind his 3 sons namely, Ruplal Singh Choudhary, Shiblal Singh Choudhary, Sripati Singh Choudhary and one daughter namely, Amumani Devi. Ruplal Singh Choudhary died leaving behind two sons namely, Balram Singh Choudhary and Chakradhar Singh Choudhary and three daughters namely, Sharma Devi, Nishodha Devi and Sarswati Devi. Nishodha Devi also died leaving behind two sons namely, Sanjay Kumar Ray and Ranjan Kumar Ray and two daughters namely Veena Devi and Baby Devi. Further, Shiblal Singh Choudhary died leaving behind his widow Susheela Devi, two sons namely, Kailash Prasad Singh Choudhary and Kasinath Singh Choudhary and four daughters namely, Pratima Devi, Kamla Devi, Menka Devi and Champa Devi. Sripati Singh Choudhary also died leaving behind his widow Yashoda Devi, five sons namely, Tripuraree Singh Choudhary, Pawan Kumar Singh Choudhary, Dhurbeshwar Singh Choudhary, Ganesh Singh Choudhary and Basisth Singh Choudhary and one daughter namely, Kamla Devi. The legal heirs of the Late Sripati Singh Choudhary are plaintiffs in the present case.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=eISc8sUCYnQFBVP%2BVeJCOG67KifeKwLNVvP5gc0FnfF8WBUILjOUCn%2BLcJ4y9nBz&caseno=SA/498/2017&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010297582017&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.