RANCHI, India, Feb. 25 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Jan. 27:

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgement dated 10.08.2007 (decree signed on 22.08.2007) passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Dumka in Title (Partition) Appeal No. 4 of 2005/F.A. No. 14 of 1977 whereby the appeal was allowed. The Title Suit No. 70 of 1974 was decided vide judgement dated 09.11.1976 (decree dated 26.11.1976).

2. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 16.04.2009 on the following substantial question of law:-

(i) Whether the findings recorded by the courts below without appreciating additional evidence adduced at the appellate stage can be sustained in law?

(ii) Whether the finding on the issue of adoption in absence of the appellant is binding on the appellant who was not a party to the suit?

3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the suit was filed seeking partition in various schedules to the plaint but the partition was allowed with respect to all the schedules, except schedule D property. He has submitted that the plaintiff was the appellant before the 1st appellate court and the 1st appellate court allowed the appeal whereby the relief with respect to the partition of schedule D property was also allowed.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that at no point of time the original appellant was party before the learned trial court or before the learned 1st appellate court. However, he became a party for the first time through the final judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court and in the decree, the name of the appellant is also appearing.

5. The learned counsel submits that the original appellant was the biological son of Badri Bhagat but at the same time, he was the adopted son of Hari Narayan Bhagat. He submits that at the 1st appellate stage, a petition for substitution of Badri Bhagat, who is said to have expired on 12.01.1994, was filed along with the petition for condonation of delay in filing substitution. A prayer was made to substitute Badri Bhagat by his two sons namely Ram Dhani Bhagat and Rama Shankar Bhagat. He submits that since there was a dispute as to whether Ram Dhani Bhagat (the original appellant in this appeal ) would be a legal heir or Badri Bhagat, the substitution was partly allowed vide order dated 15.07.2006 whereby only Rama Shankar Bhagat was substituted as a legal heir of Badri Bhagat and the substitution of Ramdhani Bhagat (present original appellant) as legal heir of Badri Bhagat was kept in abeyance till the final decision of the appeal.

6. The learned counsel submits that on account of the aforesaid, the original appellant of this case never became a party before the 1st appellate court.

7. The learned counsel submits that the learned 1st appellate court ultimately passed the judgement and held that Ramdhani Bhagat (the original appellant of this case) is not the adopted son of Hari Narayan Bhagat and in the final judgment itself, Ramdhani Bhagat has been directed to be substituted as one of the legal heirs and successors of Badri Bhagat.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=O8rtNkbgLSLWg%2FXMiQDz62YQ94seRBBO5X%2Bneqzjn8li4cH92sShTzqfJxodx1Gi&caseno=SA/204/2007&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010179722007&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.