RANCHI, India, Feb. 3 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Jan. 5:

1. 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.

*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.