Advocates:
['I S CHOUDHARY', '', 'P K PRASAD', 'LALIT KR LAL', 'A K SINHA', 'MANJUL PRASAD', '', 'O P TIWARI', 'A K TIWARY', 'K KASHYAP', 'R R TIWARI']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

S. A. No. 99 of 1991(R)

1. Smt. Priambda Sahay (deleted v/o dated 05.01.1999)

2. Smt. Mohini Sinha

3. Hari Krishna Sahay

4. Chandra Sekhar Sahay

…

…

Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellants

Versus

1. (a) (i) Sanjay Kumar Pandey

(a) (ii) Anjoy Kumar Pandey

1. (b)(i) Smt. Shakuntala Devi

(b)(ii) Navin Kumar Pandey

(b) (iii) Praveen Kumar Pandey

2. Hadeshwar Pandey @ Madeshwar Pandey

3. Ram Lakhan Pandey

4. Smt. Saraswati Devi

5. Mukteshwar Pandey

6. Raj Kishore Prasad (deleted v/o dated 14.01.1992)

7. Masomat Rosmani Devi(deleted v/o dated 14.01.1992)

8. Smt. Girja Devi (expunged v/o dated 17.01.2001)

9. Smt. Shailaja Devi

…

… Plaintiffs/Respondents/Proforma Respondents

---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For Appellant Nos. 1 & 2: Mr. Lalit Kumar Lal, Advocate

For Appellant Nos. 3 & 4: Mr. Manjul Prasad, Senior Advocate

Mr. Babban Prasad, Advocate

For the Respondents

: Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Senior Advocate

Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate

---

36/02.05.2019

Heard Mr. Lalit Kumar Lal, counsel appearing on behalf

of the appellant nos. 1 and 2.

2.

Heard Mr. Manjul Prasad, Senior Advocate appearing on

behalf of the appellant nos. 3 and 4 assisted by Mr. Babban

Prasad, Advocate. The learned Senior counsel for appellant nos.

3 and 4 submits that vide order dated 19.10.2000, respondent

nos. 10 and 11 were struck off as respondents and were

transposed as appellant nos. 3 and 4.

3.

Heard Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Senior Advocate appearing on

behalf of the respondents.

4.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and

decree dated 27.05.1991 (decree signed on 10.06.1991) passed by

2

1^st Additional District Judge, Palamau in Title Appeal No. 16 of

73 / 15 of 75 setting aside the judgment and decree dated

29.06.1973

passed

by

Additional

Sub-Judge,

Palamau,

Daltonganj in Title Suit No. 20 of 1963/ 29 of 1971.

5.

This appeal was admitted vide order dated 24.09.1991 on

following substantial question of law:

(a) “Whether the suit was barred in view Article 91 of the old

Limitation Act corresponding to Article 59 of the new Limitation

Act?

(b) Whether the property being coparcenary property, could have been

transferred by some coparceners without the consent of others?”

6.

Title Suit No. 20/63 was filed by Mithileshwar Sahai - the

original plaintiff in connection with Khata No. 60 bearing

different plot numbers of village Bedami Khurd thana no. 434,

khata no. 22 under different plots and the lands situated in

village Bisunpur thana no. 435 khata no. 19 under different

plots were alleged to be ancestral property of Munshi Mathura

Prasad and in Cadastral Survey Settlement Record-of-Rights

also, these properties were recorded in his name. Said Munshi

Mathura Prasad had three sons namely, Nawal Kishore Sahai,

Gokhuleshwar Sahai and Mithleshwar Sahai.

7.

The original plaintiff Mithleshwar Sahai had filed the suit

for a declaration that Kewala dated 18.08.1958, executed by Late

Nawal Kishore Sahai, in favour of the original defendant nos. 1

and 2, alienating his 1/3^rd share in the suit properties

mentioned in the Schedule-A of the plaint was null and void.

Accordingly subsequent Kewala dated 02.07.1960, executed by

original defendant nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the defendant nos. 3

to 6 was also null and void and the said Kewalas did not confer

any right, title or interest in favour of defendant nos. 1 and 2

and also in favour of defendant nos. 3 to 6.

8.

The case of the plaintiff (appellants here) was as under:

(a) That the suit land were ancestral property of Munshi

Mathura Prasad, who along with his three sons constituted a

3

joint Hindu family. Munshi Mathura Prasad was the Karta

of the family, who died in the year 1940. After his death, the

three sons continued to be