The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove every link in a genealogy when a case is based on it, and the court's reliance on documentary evidence and oral witnesses to determine the partition of ancestral property.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mrs. Nivedita Kundu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Sahay, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This second appeal has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 10.02.2004 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No.VII, Ranchi in Title Appeal No.85/2003 affirming the judgment dated 31.01.2003 passed by the learned Sub-Judge IX, Ranchi in Partition Suit No.198/1996.

3. The appellant herein had filed Partition Suit No.198/1996 for partition of the half share in the land described in the Schedule-A of the plaint and for carving out a separate Takhta by appointment of the Pleader Commissioner. The said partition suit on contest was decided by the learned Sub-Judge IX, Ranchi and after considering the judgment as well as the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, the learned Sub-Judge has come to the conclusion that Schedule-A of the plaint were previously partitioned much before the revisional survey operation and the respective shares were possessed by all the raiyats and the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved with that judgment dated 31.01.2003, the appellant filed Title Appeal No.85/2003, which was decided by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No.VII, Ranchi vide judgment dated 10.02.2004, whereby, the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial court has been affirmed. Being aggrieved with that judgment, the appellant has filed this second appeal.

4. This second appeal was admitted on 11.08.2006 on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the learned courts below are justified in law in presuming partition on the basis of entries in the remarks column showing separate possession, even though they found that there was unequal distribution of the lands?”

5. Respondents were noticed and pursuant thereto the respondents are appeared in this second appeal.

6. Mrs. Nivedita Kundu, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiffs and the defendant are governed by their Oraon Customary law, however the suit was filed for partition. According to her, the land situated in village-Kulli, P.S. Bero, District-Ranchi being Khata No.16 are the common ancestral properties of the parties. The said Khata was recorded in the name of Kaila Oraon, Dedo Oraon, Mosomat Khelo Oraon, Foure Orain, Maya Oraon, Fatru Oraon and Khoja Oraon. She further submits that after their death, the plaintiffs and defendant have jointly inherited all the movable and immovable properties of their ancestors. The R.S. Record of right was prepared in the names of Kaila Oraon, Dedo Oraon, Mosomat Khelo Orain, Jaura Oraon, Maya Oraon, Jatru Oraon, Jhuja Oraon, who were the common ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendant. She also submits that it was stated that Mahli Oraon, Maya Oraon and Khoja Oraon shown in the genealogical table in the line of Sumai Oraon, who died issueless so their shares in the suit property devolved in the shares of other heirs of Sumai Oraon and similarly the share of Dedo Oraon who also died issueless in the line of Samu Oraon also devolved in the shares of other heirs of Samu Oraon. On the point of the land mentioned in Scheduled-A of the plaint or ancestral properties of both the parties, she submits that there is unity of title and possession of the plaintiffs and defendant over the suit land and the said property had never been partitioned by metes and bounds and the parties are cultivating the suit land according to their convenience. She further submits that the plaintiffs are entitled for half share in the suit properties mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint since the major portion of the suit property are being possessed and cultivated by the defendant. Whenever the plaintiffs demanded the partition of the suit land, the same was refused by the defendant on various pretext and ultimately on 15.05.1996 the defendant bluntly refused to give any share in the suit land and, there