Aggrieved by order dated 02.06.2015 in Title Appeal No. 19 of 2010, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Title (Partition) Suit No. 50 of 1980 was filed by Badri Mahto and others in which Jhupar Mahto, Baleshwar Mahto, Govind Mahto and Kamal Prasad Yadav were defendant nos. 1 to 4 (defendants 1st set). The partition suit was instituted for a preliminary decree of partition and for allotment of 1/3rd share to the plaintiffs in the suit properties. The suit was decreed vide judgment and order dated 29.03.2000 and a preliminary decree was prepared on 06.04.2000 which was challenged by defendants 1st set in Title Appeal No. 14 of 2000. However, the challenge by the defendants 1st set failed and the Title Appeal was dismissed on 26.07.2003. The Second Appeal preferred by the defendants 1st set also stood dismissed on 25.07.2006. The trial court appointed Pleader Commissioner vide order dated 20.05.2006 for preparation of final decree and a report was submitted on 29.05.2008. The report of the Pleader Commissioner was objected by the defendants 1st set however, the said objections were rejected vide order dated 22.02.2010 and the appeal preferred against the said order vide Title Appeal No. 19 of 2010 has also been dismissed on 02.06.2015.

3. Mr. K.P. Deo, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Pleader Commissioner failed to take notice of the fact that some of the properties have been developed by the respective parties by investing huge money and therefore, effort should have been to allocate those properties, as far as possible, to the persons who are in possession of those properties. It is further submitted that even in residential properties the convenience of the parties have not been considered by the Pleader Commissioner and thus, the Pleader Commissioner's report is inequitable and unworkable as it would disturb the social harmony amongst the parties.

4. In Title (Partition) Suit No. 50 of 1980, the petitioners were defendants 1st set. The plaintiffs asserted that the suit property belonged to their common ancestor namely, Peru who had five sons however, two sons namely, Luku Mahto and Hanso Mahto died unmarried and issueless and thus, their shares devolves upon the surviving brothers. The plaintiffs are the descendants of one Ram Sundar and the defendants are the descendants of Durga, both sons of Peru. The case pleaded by the defendants 1st set was that there was amicable partition by metes and bound amongst the family members in the year, 1933 and since then the parties were in possession of their respective shares. It was further pleaded that Luku Mahto before his death reunited with Durga Mahto and thus, after his death his share came in possession of Durga Mahto and his descendants that is, 1st defendant nos. 1 to 4 (defendants set). The trial court disbelieved the case setup by the defendants 1st set and held that there was no previous partition amongst the family members. The appellate court also found that the defendant nos. 1 to 4 failed to prove previous partition and reunion of Luku Mahto and Durga Mahto. In Second Appeal No. 502 of 2003 the defendants 1st set reiterated their contention that the parties are separate in mess, residence and cultivation since long however, as noticed above, vide order dated 25.07.2006 Second Appeal No. 502 of 2003 was dismissed. In their objection dated 01.07.2008 to the report of the Pleader Commissioner, the petitioners pleaded as under :-

2. “That the partition is not equitable as these defendants have already stated in the written statement that the defendant Durga Mahto after huge cost and labour reclaimed plot No. 31 from Bari to Dhani and has amalgamated the same with Dhani plot No. 30, hence the defendants first party should have been allotted the entire plot Nos. 30 & 31 to the defendants first party and in lieu of that equal area of Bari second class land and Dhani IIIrd class land could have been given to the share of the plaintiff and defe