IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 175 of 2024

1. Sanjay Kakkar, aged about 55 years, son of late Kamal Kumar Kakkar

2. Sonia Kakkar, aged about 54 years, wife of Sri Sanjay Kakkar both by faith Hindu, by occupation Business and Household work, both resident of Sahu Market, Bye Pass Road, Chas, P.O.

+ P.S. Chas, District Bokaro, Jharkhand … … Plaintiffs/Appellants Versus

1. Vivek Kakkar, son of late Kamal Kumar Kakkar

2. Binney Kakkar, wife of Vivek Kakkar, both by faith Hindu, by occupation Business and Home hold work, both resident of Sahu Market, Bye Pass Road, Chas, P.O. + P.S. Chas, District Bokaro (Jharkhand)… … Defendants/Respondents ---

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

For the Appellants : Mr. R.N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Kirtivardhan, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ranjit Giri, Advocate ---

09/08.12.2025 This appeal has been filed against the judgement and decree dated 28.06.2024 (decree signed on 05.07.2024) in Original (Partition) Suit No.58/2022 by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) – I, Bokaro whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed on contest.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that plaintiff No.2 namely Sonia Kakkar and defendant No.2 namely Binney Kakkar purchased property mentioned in schedule ‘A’ to the plaint. Plaintiff No. 2 purchased 2.5 decimals of the suit land vide registered sale deed No.6557 dated 20.12.2003 and defendant No. 2 purchased 21.5 decimals of land vide registered sale deed No. 375 dated

30.12.2003 from the same vendor.

3. He has also submitted that both plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2 have jointly leased out a portion of the building constructed over schedule ‘A’ to a bank namely ICICI. The lease deed was exhibited before the learned trial court as Exhibit-3 which is dated 11.08.2016 for a period of 9 years and it has been registered vide deed No.3839 on 11.08.2016. The period of lease has expired on 10.08.2025. Now, the lease deed has been renewed and the renewed lease deed is again for a period of 9 years which is sought to be brought on record by filing interlocutory application No. 14011 of 2025 seeking to adduce additional evidence.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that two properties were purchased by the plaintiff no. 2 and defendant no. 2 respectively and the source of fund was income from the firm namely ‘Ispat scooter’ which was the partnership business in which plaintiff no. 1, defendant no. 1 and their father namely Kamal Kumar Kakkar were the parties.

5. He has submitted that altogether three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. P.W. 3 is the plaintiff no. 1 himself. P.W. 1 is Rama Kant Prasad who is the manager of the firm and P.W. 2 is Mihir Kumar Singh who has stated that he has friendly relation with Kakkar family around 20 years. However, the plaintiff no. 2 was not examined who is the owner of a portion of the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed.

6. So far as defendants are concerned, only two witnesses were examined. Defendant no. 1 was examined as D.W. 1 and defendant no. 2 was examined as D.W. 2 and no document was exhibited in their behalf.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the evidence of P.W. 1 , Ramakant Prasad, aged about 51 years, and claims to be the Manager of Hotel Casablanka situated in Chas Bokaro. He has then referred to paragraph 4 wherein he has stated that he is the manager of “this farm and Hotel Casablanka” and submits that the term this farm in paragraph (4) of the evidence is referring to the firm mentioned in the plaint i.e. Ispat Scooter. However, in the previous statement there is no reference to the firm ‘Ispat Scooter’. The learned counsel has referred to paragraph 5 of his evidence to submit that property was purchased through two sale deeds with the consent of the father-in-law of plaintiff no. 2 and defendant no. 2 and the source of fund was ‘Ispat Scooter’. It has been also stated by this witness that t