RANCHI, India, Nov. 25 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 29:

1. Learned counsel for the appellants is present.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 18.12.2018 (decree signed on 05.01.2019) passed by the learned District Judge-III, Godda allowing the Title Appeal No. 11 of 2010 and setting aside the judgment dated 30.04.2010 (decree signed on 14.05.2010) passed by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Godda in Title Suit No. 318 of 1997.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the present appeal is confined only with respect to Schedule-A property which the plaintiff No. 1 (wife of Amir Sah) claimed that it was self-acquired property of Amir Sah. The learned counsel has further submitted that so far as Schedule-B property is concerned, the same was claimed to be the self-acquired property of the plaintiff no.1. He submits that the defendants had also claimed that there was a partition by virtue of partition deed dated 13.04.1992. He has referred to internal page 16 of the trial court's judgment and has submitted that the learned trial court held that the partition deed dated 13.04.1992 was void, illegal, forged, fabricated and inoperative and it was also declared that defendant 1st party and defendant 2nd party had no right, title and interest over the suit land and further that the Schedule-B property was only the property of plaintiff no. 1.

4. The learned counsel has submitted that so far as the finding of the learned trial court with regard to partition deed dated 13.04.1992 and also with regard to Schedule-B property is concerned, the same has been sustained by the learned 1st appellate court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that so far as the Schedule-A property is concerned, the learned 1st appellate court has partly set-aside the judgment passed by the learned trial court by holding that the land of Schedule-A property of the plaint is joint family property of all three sons of Buddhu Sah, namely, Amir Sah, Jamahir Sah and Kameshwar Sah and being legal heir of Amir Sah, the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over Schedule-A land to the extent of share of Amir Sah only. The learned counsel has submitted that Aamir Sah was a government employee and he was posted as a forester in Forest Department and schedule-A property was his self-acquired property. He submits that this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the learned 1st appellate court and accordingly a substantial question of law arises for consideration.

6. Upon a query of this Court, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is no supporting registered deed in connection with purchase of Schedule-A property, but the same was acquired by way of compromise in Title Suit No. 18/1963 and also in Title Suit No. 63/1962 and Title Suit No. 100/1962. He submits that reference has been made to these aspects of the matter in paragraph 15 to 17 of the 1st appellate court's judgment. There is another reference of Title Suit No. 100 of 1962 which was filed by Hira Sah and others against Amir Sah.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants also submits that in the impugned judgment, it has been recorded that it was claimed that Amir Sah had acquired Schedule-A property from his own income and earnings as he was forester in forest department, but none of the documentary evidence has been adduced by the plaintiffs during trial of the suit, from which it could be presumed that the Amir Sah had acquired the land of Schedule-A of the plaint through registered sale deed in his name from his own income.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=%2FE3WiyNUWFIaR1oBGE62Wl9DMlEiDppAmWo0W6LJLj5nXfQH8yeIGbcNTkF9lrxb&caseno=SA/73/2019&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010085862019&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.