RANCHI, India, Dec. 25 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Nov. 25:

1. S.A. No. 393 of 2016 is relating to schedule B property of the plaint and S.A. No. 402 of 2016 is relating to schedule C property of the plaint. These appeals arise from the judgment dated 07.08.2014 (decree signed on 20.08.2014) passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, (Munsif), Hazaribag in Partition Suit No. 97 of 2005.

2. S.A. No. 393 of 2016 has been filed against the judgment dated 06.06.2016 (decree signed on 18.06.2016) passed in Title Appeal No. 45 of 2014 by the Court of learned District Judge-I, Ramgarh whereby the learned 1st appellate court has dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants. The learned trial court had partly decreed the suit for partition only with respect to schedule B property and the learned 1st appellate court, upon appeal filed by the defendants with respect to Schedule B property, has dismissed the appeal. S.A. No. 402 of 2016 has also been filed by the defendants against that part of the judgment dated 06.06.2016 in Title Appeal No. 45 of 2014 whereby the learned 1st appellate court has been pleased to allow the cross-appeal filed by the plaintiffs with respect to Schedule C property.

3. The schedule B property is relating to certain plots in Khata no. 26 and 28 in village Bujurg Zamira, P.S. Patratu District Hazaribagh (now Ramgarh). The schedule C property is in relation with certain plots in khata nos. 25, 27, 113 and 114 of the same village.

4. Vide order dated 30.09.2021 passed in both the cases, following substantial question of law was framed: -

(i) Whether the first appellate court has committed illegality in reversing the findings of the trial court in respect of issue no. 9 without discussing and giving reasons as to why first appellate court is reversing the aforesaid finding? 5. The issue no. IX was relating to schedule C property. 6. Vide order dated 31.03.2022 passed in S.A No. 393 of 2016 the following substantial question of law has been framed: -

(ii) Whether the courts below have misconstrued Section 18 of the Hindu Succession Act while dealing with Law of Succession regarding inheritance of the property of Gurdu Gope?

7. The Partition Suit was filed by three plaintiffs, namely, Rama Gope @ Rima Gope, Lato Gope @ Latlaha Gope and Binu Gope @ Bindeshwar Gope, all sons of Late Bhola Gope for the following reliefs:

(a) That after adjudication, a decree may be passed that the lands of schedule 'C' of the parties irrespective of Khatian entries in the individual names of co-parceners;

(b) That thereafter, a preliminary decree for the half share of the plaintiffs with respect to the lands of the suit khatas as detailed in Schedule 'B' & 'C' below be passed and a separate Takhta be carved out with respect to the plaintiffs' half share by appointment of a Pleader Commissioner and the plaintiffs are put in khas possession of the same by evicting the defendants or any person claiming through them through the process of the court;

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=7yg5D%2FmJmLJFbv9l4Wl3vWymuxmz4LK%2B0pghtLVYdbC1Hr6%2Fp%2BDa5NpvnpJ6JUV1&caseno=SA/393/2016&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010180392016&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.