IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 390 of 2017 1. Jirwa Devi W/o Ambika Ram

2. Prabhu Ram S/o Shivdutta Ram, both residents of Village-

Ahirpurwa, P.O., P.S.- Nagar Untari, District- Garhwa …… … Defendants/Respondents/Appellants -Versus-

1. Bangali Ram @ Bangali Dusadh

2. Jangali Ram @ Jangali Dusadh

3. Kamalu Ram @ Kamalu Dusadh Sl. Nos. 1 to 3 all sons of Late Fagu Ram

4. Pramila Devi W/o Late Daharu Ram 5. Pappu Kumar S/o Late Daharu Ram

6. Rambha Kunwar D/o Late Daharu Ram 7. Sandhya Kunwar D/o Late Daharu Ram Sl. Nos. 6 & 7 are minors, represented through their legal and natural guardian mother- Respondent No.4 Sl. Nos. 1 to 7 all residents of Village- Ahirpurwa, P.O., P.S.- Nagar Untari, Distict- Garhwa …… …… Plaintiffs/Appellants/Respondents ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate ---

Lastly heard on 04.02.2025

18/24.04.2025 This second appeal has been filed by the defendants against Judgment dated 12.07.2017 (Decree sealed and signed on 24.07.2017) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Garhwa in Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2016 whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was allowed and the Judgment dated 23.12.2015 (Decree sealed and signed on 19.01.2016) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-II / Munsif, Garhwa in Title Suit No. 65 of 2002 was set aside to the extent mentioned in the judgement passed by the learned first Appellate Court, i.e. only with respect to the property claimed by the plaintiffs in connection with registered partition deed dated 07.06.1969 (Exhibit-4-

area 56 decimals).

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs primarily for adjudication and declaration of right, title and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land irrespective of order/orders passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagar Untari in the case under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. and also the order of revisional court in the said matter. The plaintiffs had also prayed for confirmation of possession of the plaintiffs and if they are found out of possession, a prayer was made to restore the possession through the process of court. The suit was relating to two properties covered by two registered documents – Exhibit-2 to the extent of 16 decimal of land and Exhibit-4 to the extent of 56 decimals of land.

3. The suit was dismissed with regard to the properties covered by registered deed dated 11.06.1996 (Exhibit-2- area 16 decimals) and also with respect to the claim arising out of registered partition deed dated 07.06.1969 (Exhibit-4- area 56 decimals) as claimed by the plaintiffs, but the learned first appellate court allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs only with respect to registered partition deed dated 07.06.1969 (Exhibit-4- area 56 decimals) and confirmed the dismissal of the suit with resect to covered by registered deed dated 11.06.1996 (Exhibit-2- area 16 decimals). The defendants are the appellants before this court. 4. This second appeal was admitted for hearing on 31.10.2018 after framing substantial questions of law which was modified vide order dated 04.02.2025. The substantial questions of law were relating to Exhibit-4 as the judgement relating to Exhibit-2 rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs was confirmed by the learned first appellate court and the defendants are in second appeal with respect to the property covered under Exhibit-4. The substantial questions of law as framed are as under:

“A. Whether the Findings of the learned court of appeal below on Ext 4, a true copy of the partition deed and as a consequence there of reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court partly and there by decreeing the suit in part even without meeting the reasonings of the learned trial court, is legally and factually sustainable?

B. Whether the learned court of appeal below has applied correct principle of law and was justified in relying upon the Ext 4 a true copy of the part