M.Y Eqbal, J.:— This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-4-1987 passed by Sub-Judge-II, Gumla in Title Appeal No. 16/9 of 1981/85 whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs/appellants and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, Gumla in Title Suit-No. 160/69. The plaintiffs/appellants filed the aforementioned suit for declaration that partition deed dated 26-6-1969 is null and void and is not binding on the plaintiffs.
2. Plaintiffs' case inter alia is that the lands under Khewat 23/1 and 23/2 Bhuinhari and Khatas 245 and 125 of village Pandaria P.S Sisai, Dist. Gumla, originally belonged to one Sibu Oraon S/o Bandhu Oraon who has been recorded as such in the cadastral survey. Sibu Oraon had two daughters one of whom was married to Bijua and the other daughter was married to Dere Oraon. The further case is that Sibu Oraon, having no son, transferred his lands to his damads. Bijua and Dere vide registered deed dated 5-7-12. It was confirmed by the then landlord also. After the execution of the deeds, Bijua and Dere remained in joint possession of the properties Dere died before revisional survey, leaving behind his son, Sibram. During revisional survey Bijua and Sibram were recorded separately for the lands as they were cultivating the lands separately for convenience sake. One Lachoo Oraon was also recorded for the lands of Sibu Oraon. Bijua died leaving behind his only son Sibu and Sibram died leaving behind Manu and Lachoo. There was one Lachoo Oraon son of Fagu Oraon recorded in khewat 23/2 who also died leaving behind no issue. The plaintiffs and Sibu were and are the bhuinhars recorded in Khata No. 236 and are paying rent jointly. Sibu has only one daughter, Hira the defendant, who has been married to Zarku Oraon son of Jipa Oraon of Armai Mahuatoli P.S Gumla in a regular form and Hira used to reside in her sasural but as her father Sibu became old, she had been to her father's house for attending him and on 19-7-1969 Sibu Oraon died and at present Hira is residing in the house of her father. The plaintiffs are the only reversioners and heirs of Sibu Oraon being the bhuinhars of one khunt. The plaintiffs are cultivating the land recorded in the name of Sibu since long in the life time of Sibu when Sibu became old and after his death the plaintiffs are cultivating the lands as the heirs and successors of Sibu. The defendants wanted to grab some lands and instigated her father to execute a partition deed and on 26-6-1969 got a partition deed registered which includes land of Khata No. 322:125 and 245. The deed of partition gives not title to the defendant and no procedure under Section 46 C.N.T Act was acquired a bhuinhari lands and other lands of Sibu Oraon. The alleged deed is void, illegal, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiffs who are the heirs of bhuinhar, Sibu Oraon. The plaintiffs still pay rent for those lands. The deed has cast a cloud over the title of the plaintiffs over the suit lands and hence the necessity of the suit for the aforesaid relief. Defendant/respondent contested the suit by filing written statement. The case of the defendant is that Sibu Oraon son of Bandhu Oraon had three daughters viz, Mostt. Ledari, Most. Gouri and Mostt. Hira. Most. Ledari was married to Bijua, Most. Gauri to Dere and Most. Hira to Lachhoo. Sibu Oraon transferred his property separately to his three son-in-laws. As Dere Oraon was of village Pandharia khas, he Jived as usual in his ancestral house and cultivated the lands allotted to him white Bijua Oaon and Lachoo Oraon lived together in the house of Sibu Oraon and cultivated the lands given to them jointly, Before revisional survey Bijua Oraon died leaving behind his son, Sibu Oraon while Dere Oraondied leaving his son Sibram Oraon and so the. lands transferred to Dere Oraon were recorded separately in the name of Sibram Oraon and the house allotted to Bijua Oraon and Lachoo Oraon. After the revisional survey firstly Lachoo and then his wife, Hira died heirless. Sibu Oraon became the sole owner of the lands and he had been in possession of the same after paying paying rent. After him his daughter is in possession of the same. Plaintiffs are never in possession of the land. The suit is also vague as plaintiffs have not detailed the lands over which they went to get their right. The suit is also undervalued and the suit property is more than Rs. 6000. The further plea is that the sons-in-law of Sibu Oraon and their descendants cannot be bhuinhars in the khunt of Sibu Oraon. It is wrong that plaintiffs are the bhuinhars of the same khunt. Sibu Oraon son of Bandhu Oraon had no descendant in the male line. He married his daughter to persons of three different families and allotted his lands separately to them and separate khatas have been prepared in their names. The number of one family cannot claim the lands of a different family, Sibu Oraon son of Bijua Oraon had only one daughter, the defendant. He expressed his intention to marry her to a boy and adopt him as his ghardamad. After making arrangement, he along with some persons went to Armai Mahuatoli, P.S Gumla and promised to adopt Zarku Oraon as his ghardamad. He brought Zarku Oraon in his house, kept him, married, him with his daughter and adopted him as ghardamad. The ghardamad was spendthrift. Sibu Oraon always advised him not to do so but he did not listen to it. Sibu Oraon rebuked him for this and this annoyed. Zarku Oraon and he left the village. Under the impression that the property would; be disposed of by the Ghardamad, Sibu Oraon and his daughter divided the property between them through a registered deed on 26-6-1969. A few weeks after the execution of deed the father died and defendant is in possession of the land since then. The plaintiffs have got no right, title or interestover the land and the suit is fit to be dismissed with costs.
3. The trial Court framed the following issue for consideration:
(1) Have the plaintiffs got cause of action for the suit?
(2) Is the suit as framed maintainable?
(3) Is the suit undervalued and the Court fee paid Insufficient?
(4) Is the partition deed dated 26-6-1969 valid and binding upon the plain-tiffs?
(5) Are the plaintiffs bhuihars in the khunt of Sibu Oraon.
(6) Are the plaintiffs reversioners of Sibu Oraon in accordance with the cus-toms in the matters of inheritance and succession prevalent in their commu-nity?
(7) To what relief or reliefs, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?
4. The trial Court decided all the issues against the plaintiffs/appellants and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs they preferred Title Appeal being T.A No. 16/9 of 1981/85. The lower appellate Court dismissed … the appeal after confirming findings recorded by the trial Court. Hence this appeal.
5. On 23-2-1993 this Court admitted the appeal for hearing on the following substantial question of law.
“(A) Whether the partition deed (Ext. 5) was void and illegal in view of Sec-tion 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, as no permission of the Deputy Com-missioner was taken particularly because Hira had no right to inherit the suit properties ?
(B) Whether in view of the defendant respondents own Case the appellant becomes a reversioners and gets entitled to a share in the suit properties and whether in such an event, the appellant who was not even a party to the partition deed (Ext. 5) can be held to be bound by it ?
(C) Whether the learned Courts below have committed an Error on a sub-stantial question of law by holding in paragraph (10) of the judgment that the two demands of Sibu (old).i.e. Bijua and Dere had partitioned the lands themselves which was a, completely new case not pleaded by either of the parties ?
(D) Whether the learned Court below committed a grave Error of law by holding that the two demands of old Sibu had separated without any basis or evidence relying solely upon the entries in the Khatian ?
6. Mr. N.K Prasad, learned senior Counsel for the appellants assailed the findings recorded by the Court below as being contrary to law and facts and evidence on record. Learned Counsel mainly attacked the findings recorded by the appellate Court in para 10 of the judgment and submitted that the deed of partition is virtually a transfer of property in favour of persons who are not legally entitled to inherit the property. Learned Counsel submitted that the Court below has made out a third case in favour of the defendants by holding that the two son-in-laws of Sibu Oraon i.e Bijua Oraon and Dere Oraon had partitioned the land themselves.
7. From perusal of the judgment passed by the trial Court as also the appellate Court, it appears that both the Court below have analyzed and discussed the evidence both oral and documentary in detail and came to a concurrent Finding of fact that the disputed land belonged to Bijua Oraon and after him his son who became absolute owner, Both the Courts below have come to a finding that plaintiffs are not agnates rather they are cognates related to Sibu Oraon through family and so they are not close male agnates to claim property by reversionership. The Courts below have also recorded concurrent finding of fact that plaintiffs are stranger to the family and the defendant and their predecessor in interest have been in possession of the suit land at all material time. The suit was, therefore, dismissed.
8. Taking into consideration the concurrent finding of fact of the trial Court and the appellate Court based on evidence, I am of the opinion that substantial question of law formulated at the time of admitting of the appeal does not at all arise.
9. Having regard to the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below,
10. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.
11. There is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.
12. Appeal dismissed.
Comments