The court upheld the determination of joint ownership and rejected the claim of adoption due to lack of evidence.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER

6 19-01-2026 Heard Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment of affirmance dated 27.05.2017 passed in Title Appeal No. 40 of 2012 by learned 1^st Additional District Judge, Araria, whereby the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2012 passed by learned Sub-Judge-1, Araria in Title Suit No. 110 of 2009 has been upheld.

3. This Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants/appellants/appellants.

4. The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 110 of 2009 for partition of her half share in the suit land mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint and carving out the said share by appointing Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner.

5. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land belongs to common ancestor of the plaintiff and defendant 1^st party, namely, Doman Pandit much prior to R.S. operation consisting him and his sons Rupan Pandit and Bhutai Pandit being the members of Joint Hindu Mitakshara Family who had been coming in joint possession over the same. Thereafter, Rupan pandit died leaving behind his son Ganeshi Pandit and Bhutai Pandit also died leaving behind his wife Most. Bhagiya Devi and one daughter Chhutharniya Devi, much prior to R.S.

operation and Ganeshi Pandit, Bhagiya Devi came in joint possession over the suit land having equal share. It is further pleaded that during R.S. Operation, the name of Ganeshi Pandit and Most. Bhagiya Devi has been recorded but due to mistake of survey amalas, the land of R.S. Khata No. 282 and 8 of Mauza Parsa Hat was wrongly recorded only in the name of Ganeshi Pandit which ought to have been recorded in the name of Ganeshi Pandit along with Most. Bhagiya Devi having equal share. Despite of wrong entry with respect to the land of R.S. Khata No. 282 and 8 only in the name of Ganeshi Pandit, the ancestor of defendant 1^st party Most. Bhagiya Devi, the mother of the plaintiff had been coming in joint possession over the land of R.S. Khata No. 282 and 8 along with the land of R.S. Khata No. 280, 281 which is the suit land. It is further submitted that during R.S. operation in the remarks column of R.S. Khatiyan, the separate possession of Ganeshi Pandit and Most. Bhagiya Devi has been wrongly noted as there was no partition by metes and bounds between them. The said entry is quite wrong.

6. The further case of the plaintiff is that Ganeshi Pandit during his lifetime sold some land out of the suit land to defendant 2^nd party and defendant 2^nd party have been coming in possession to the extent of share of Late Ganeshi Pandit out of the suit land. There is unity of title and unity of possession between the parties over the suit land. The plaintiff demanded partition of her share in the suit land. The defendant 1^st party did not pay any heed, then the suit was filed.

7. On summon, defendant nos. 1 to 5 appeared and filed their written statement. Apart from the ornamental objection, it is vehemently submitted that Doman Pandit had a brother Nandi Pandit, who was 8 Annas co-sharer of the suit property. Doman Pandit died leaving behind Rupan Pandit and Bhutai Pandit. Rupan Pandit died leaving behind Ganeshi Pandit who died leaving Narayan, Janardan and Ghottai, who are defendant nos. 1, 2 & 3 to the suit. The defendant nos. 4 & 5 are the purchaser out of the suit land from late Ganeshi Pandit. It is further pleaded that Nandi Pandit was the full brother of Doman Pandit but he had no issue. Hence, he adopted Ganeshi Pandit as his Kritrim Putra as was customary then. Thus, Ganeshi Pandit became owner of Nandi Pandit’s half share and 1/4th share inherited from Rupan Pandit, his father being the son of Doman Pandit. It is further pleaded that Nandi Pandit, Doman Pandit, Rupan Pandit and Bhutai Pandit died sometime during 1929- 1930 leaving behind Ganeshi Pandit and Bhutai Pandit’s widow Bhagiya Devi and a daughter as the plaintiff Chhutharnia De