Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
D. N. UPADHYAY, J.
Priya Ranjan Bhagat & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Saroj Bhagat & Ors. - Respondents
F.A. No.379 of 1991(R)
With
F.A. No.95, 107 of 2007
Decided On : 31-8-2015
TITLE PARTITION SUIT - [KEYWORD] - ACT SECTION LIST - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a Title Partition Suit No.10 of 1987 in the court of Sub Judge at Khunti and the said suit was transferred to the court of Sub Judge-V, Ranchi where after it was re-registered as Title Partition Suit no.86 of 1988. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that Late Lachhan Ram Bhagat was the common ancestor of the parties to the suit and he died in or about 1956, leaving behind his only son and sole legal heir-Nand Lal Bhagat. It is further disclosed that Nand Lal Bhagat died on 13th October, 1973, leaving behind three sons, namely, Santosh Lal Bhagat (Defendant No.7), Mahendra Lal Bhagat (Defendant No.8) and Ranjeet Lal Bhagat (Defendant No.9). Basant Lal Bhagat, the eldest son of Nand Lal Bhagat, pre-deceased sometime in the year 1969 leaving behind his widow-Shanta Bhagat (Defendant No.6) and five sons, namely, Pradeep Kumar Bhagat (Defendant No.1), Pramod Bhagat (Defendant No.2), Jayant Bhagat (Defendant No.3), Ashok Bhagat (Defendant No.4) and Alok Bhagat (Defendant No.5) and Ratna Gupta (Defendant No.5a).
Finding of the Court:
The plaintiffs have confined their interest to the extent of partition of Schedule-D property in this appeal, which is related to Issue No.V, I feel it desirable to discuss the facts and evidences available on record relating to Schedule-D property.
Issues: I. Is the suit maintainable as framed? II. Have the plaintiff valid cause of action for the suit? III. Is there unity of title and possession of the parties over the suit land? IV. Is the suit barred by limitation and adverse possession? V. Can the partition of schedule properties be reopened in view of the partition which took place on 30th July, 1968 with regard to Schedule-B property, family settlement deed dated 19th May, 1969 with regard to Schedule-D property partition of Schedule-E property dated 1st October, 1971 and partition of property of Jamundag left by Nand Lal Bhagat vide oral partition in June, 1975? VI. Is the property acquired by the Plaintiff No.1 at Ashok Puram, an item of joint property of the parties? VII. Are the plaintiff entitled to share? If yet, to what extent? VIII. Are the plaintiff entitled to any relief or reliefs as claimed?
Ratio Decidendi: The property under Schedule-D was purchased in the name of Mahendra Lal Bhagat from the contributions made by four sons of Late Nand Lal Bhagat. In course of deposition, it was admitted that part of the contribution was also made by Nand Lal Bhagat.
Final Decision: The findings of the Trial Court appears to be correct. Ranjeet Lal Bhagat (Defendant No.9) neither appeared in the suit nor in the present appeal and he did not raise his voice. He had participated in those partition and family settlement and had acknowledged and accepted the exclusive possession acquired by the parties on the portion of the land partitioned. The Trial Court has rightly held that principle of ouster and adverse possession shall also apply in such circumstances in respect of Schedules-B, D & E properties. So far properties pertaining to Schedules-C, F, G & H are concerned, the issue has been partly decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Since neither the appellants nor the respondents have challenged the findings of the Trial Court in respect of Issue Nos.I, II, VII and VIII, the findings of the Trial Court is hereby upheld.
D.N. UPADHYAY, J.
1. F.A. No.379 of 1991 has been preferred against the judgment dated 3rd September, 1991 and decree dated 13th September, 1991, passed and signed by Subordinate Judge-V, Ranchi, in connection with Title Partition Suit No.86 of 1988, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed for partition has been decreed in part in favour of the plaintiffs.
F.A. No.95 of 2007 and F.A. No.107 of 2007 have been preferred by Mukul Bhagat, son of Late Santosh Lal Bhagat [Original Defendant No.7(b)] and Saroj Bhagat, wife of Pradeep Kumar Bhagat [Original Defendant No.1(a)], respectively, against the final decree dated 17th March, 2007, arising out of judgment dated 9th September, 2004 passed by this Court in F.A. No.379 of 1991(R), whereby and whereunder, this Court had been pleased to allow the first appeal in part.
2. In F.A. No.379 of 1991(R), the appellants were plaintiffs and respondents were defendants in the court below.
3. It appears from the record that by judgment dated 9th September, 2004, F.A. No.379 of 1991(R) was allowed in part. Thereafter, the matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After grant of leave, arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.4493 of 2007, Civil Appeal No.8222 of 2012 was disposed of by order dated 22nd November, 2012 and the judgment dated 9th September, 2004 passed by this Court has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back with the following observations and directions:-
“The High Court may now re-hear the appeal in question afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from the date the parties appear before it. The parties are directed to appear before the High Court either personally or through their counsel on 3.12.2012. We make it clear that no further notice shall be necessary to be served to any of the parties and the Court shall be free to proceed ex-parte against anyone absenting from hearing. We make it clear that Abha Bhagat, Ritu Bhagat and Saroj Bhagat, legal representatives left behind by Shri Pradeep Bhagat may make arrangement for their representation before the High Court failing which adverse consequence may follow agains them. The appeal is allowed with the above directions leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”
4. The appellants/plaintiffs filed Title Partition Suit No.10 of 1987 in the court of Sub Judge at Khunti and the said suit was transferred to the court of Sub Judge-V, Ranchi where after it was re-registered as Title Partition Suit no.86 of 1988.
5. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that Late Lachhan Ram Bhagat was the common ancestor of the parties to the suit and he died in or about 1956, leaving behind his only son and sole legal heir-Nand Lal Bhagat. It is further disclosed that Nand Lal Bhagat died on 13th October, 1973, leaving behind three sons, namely, Santosh Lal Bhagat (Defendant No.7), Mahendra Lal Bhagat (Defendant No.8) and Ranjeet Lal Bhagat (Defendant No.9). Basant Lal Bhagat, the eldest son of Nand Lal Bhagat, pre-deceased sometime in the year 1969 leaving behind his widow-Shanta Bhagat (Defendant No.6) and five sons, namely, Pradeep Kumar Bhagat (Defendant No.1), Pramod Bhagat (Defendant No.2), Jayant Bhagat (Defendant No.3), Ashok Bhagat (Defendant No.4) and Alok Bhagat (Defendant No.5) and Ratna Gupta (Defendant No.5a).
6. It is contended in the plaint that Lachhan Ram Bhagat had sufficient properties, both, agricultural and non-agricultural, measuring about 60 acres in different villages within the district of Ranchi, yielding sufficient income so much so that even after maintenance of the family sufficient amount was left over every year. Out of income of agricultural and non-agricultural properties, the joint family acquired a piece of land in the name of Nand Lal Bhagat on 20th April, 1934, measuring 10 Kathas in the town of Ranchi, pertaining to Thana No.205, Municipal Holding No.839, Ward No.2, commonly known as Old Commissioner Compound, within K
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
