USMAN MIAN Vs. HAMIDAN BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE substantial question to be answered in this appeal is "Whether the learned Court of appeal below erred in law in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court without taking into consideration the fact that the learned trial Court held on the basis of evidence of the witnesses that Rajia daughter of Mehru had no share (presumably on the basis of the statement of PW 4 and PW 6 that at the time of Mehru 'sdeath he had left behind his three sons)".

(2.) THE aforesaid question arose out of the fact that the plaintiff -appellant had filed a suit for partition of the Scheduled B land given in the plaint. Plaintiffs ' Genealogy is as follows : - - .........[vernacular ommited text]........... Their case was that the plaintiff 'swere related to the defendants as shown in the genealogical table. Their further case is that Mehru died leaving behind three sons Baksu, Lalu and Kalu and that Mehru died in the year 1925 (earlier it was in the pleading 1930, but it was amended to 1925) and his son Baksu died after 15 days after the death of Mahru (though in the original plaint, it was after six months but in the amendment, it was 15 days of the death of Mehru) and during his life time, Mehru had partitioned the land among three sons and had kept Schedule B land in his Khas possession. Therefore, after the death of Mehru, this property was divided among all the three brothers equally, 1/3 equal share each. The plaintiffs claim partition from the defendants in the Schedule B lands because they had not agreed to this. Kiti Rana Versus State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

(3.) THE learned trial Court framed the following issues : - -