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

1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgement dated 09.09.2004 (decree signed on 22.09.2004) passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. III, Deoghar whereby Title Appeal No. 23 of 2001 has been allowed. The trial court judgement is dated 08.10.2001 (decree signed on 27.11.2001) passed by learned Sub Judge-III, Deoghar in Title Suit No. 284 of 1997. The Title Suit was decreed. The defendant nos. 1,2,3 who were the contesting defendants were the appellants before the 1st Appellate Court. The 1st Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and consequently the plaintiffs are the appellants before this court.

2. This appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 22.12.2006 on the following substantial question of law: - "1) Whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing the finding of the trial Court on the ground that family settlement having been entered into in 1980 after the death of Bhuka Devi cannot be given effect to?"

3. The Title Suit was filed for the following reliefs: -

(a) That a decree be passed declaring, that the plaintiffs have valid right, title and interest in the suit-lands described in Schedule-B of the plaint to the extent of their half interest in the same along with their joint right to keep in occupation and enjoyment of house Plot No. 594 and Tank Plot No. 548 and for confirmation of their such possession and in the event of their dispossession during pendency of the suit, for recovery of possession as well.

(b) A decree directing partition of the suit-land described in Schedule- "B" of the plaint partitioning the half share of the plaintiffs in the same, and for carving out separate block of the said half share of the plaintiffs in the suitlands through an Amin Commissioner appointed by the Court, and for delivery of possession of the same through Court.

(c) A decree declaring that the Defendant no. 1 has no right, title and interest in the suit-lands described in Schedule- "B" of the plaint.

(d) A decree declaring that the order passed by the Revenue Officer, that is, order dated 27.01.1993 of Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Deoghar in the Revenue Misc. Case No. 13 of 1993 and the order dated 22.04.1993, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar in Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 131 of 1993 are void and without jurisdiction.

(e) Cost of the suit.

(f) Any other relief or reliefs which the plaintiffs are entitled to under the law.

4. Schedule-A property was Jamabandi No. 67 of village Manikpur, total area 21.39 acres and Schedule-B property was claimed by the plaintiffs to have been allocated to the share of the plaintiff no.1 Bageshwar Pandey and his full brother Maheshwar Pandey (defendant no. 4) out of the Schedule A property by virtue of registered family arrangement dated 05.12.1980. Accordingly, the plaintiffs claimed the entire schedule-B property based on the registered family arrangement dated 05.12.1980 to the exclusion of the defendant no.1. The trial court's judgment

5. The suit was filed by Bageshwar Pandey, son of Bhubneshwar Pandey and Nareshwar Pandey, Manoranjan Pandey, Dilranjan Pandey, Prafull Pandey and Sajjan Pandey, all sons of Bageshwar Pandey. The defendant no. 1 was Dakshineshwar pandey, the adopted son of Bhukha Devi wife of Kenu Pandey and defendant nos. 2 and 3 were sons of Dakshineshwar Pandey. The proforma defendants were Maheshwar Pandey s/o Bhubaneshwar Pandey and his two sons.

6. As per the case of the plaintiffs, family tree was given in paragraph 1 of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, Pairu Pandey was the common ancestor of Horil Pandey and Baichu Pandey.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=94g2mG%2B4Dkj9qDi7aqGKGdGFTc9Ei%2Bs95MR78eC%2FwGwDU6TujmCmgTdV1dl%2FaRop&caseno=SA/588/2004&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010015762004&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.