ANANT BIJAY SINGH,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(2.) The sole appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2002 passed by Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Title Appeal No.106/95 affirming the judgment dated 14.09.95 and the decree dated 25.09.95 passed by Sri T. Pathak, Sub-Judge-VII, passed in Partition Suit No.183 of 1988/ 17 of 1994.
(3.) It appears that this appeal was filed on 27.11.2002 and on 13.08.2004 this appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether the Court below have committed an error of law in dismissing the plaintiff's suit in view of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 without taking note of the decision reported in AIR 1996 S.C. 1826 and without recording specific finding on the controversy that the suit property is not being only used for dwelling purposes of the family members ? (ii) Whether the Courts below have wrongly applied bar of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act in the facts and circumstances of the case and that too without recording cogent speaking reasons ? ;