Hari Shankar Prasad, J. - (1.) This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal, has been filed by one Ram Das Singh, the appellant against the judgment dated 17th of January, 1992 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 225/1989, where by the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1989 passed by Sub-Judge, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 12/1988 has been affirmed.
(2.) The facts of the case, lie in a very narrow compass. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for partition claiming half share in the suit property, a house originally belonged to one Prasad Kumar Sinha. After the death of Prasad Kumar Sinha, his two sons. Balai Kumar Sinha and Dilip Kumar Sinha succeeded over the half of the suit property from eastern side and the western side half into the share of step brothers and sisters of Dilip Kumar Sinha and Balai Kumar Sinha. A money suit filed by the present appellant against Balai Kumar Sinha was decreed but the entire eastern half of the suit house was attached and put on auction sale by the Court. The appellant himself purchased the suit property in auction sale and got the possession through Court. Since the undivided share of Dilip Kumar Sinha was also sold in auction sale, he filed an objection being Misc. Case No. 16/1970 in the pending Execution Case No. 349/1969, claiming his undivided share with Balai Kumar Sinha. The said Misc. case was disposed of with observation that the undivided share of Dilip Kumar getting favourable order in appeal, Dilip Kumar Sinha sold his share in the property to the present respondent by registered sale-deed dated 30.5.1975. The purchaser-respondent filed a petition in the Execution Court praying therein to substitute her in execution case in place of Dilip Kumar Sinha. The said prayer was allowed by the Execution Court, against which, the present appellant filed Misc. appeal and after dismissal of appeal, filed a revision against the order of substitution but the revision was also dismissed. Therefore the purchaser-respondent filed petition for restoration of possession and the Court directed to restore the possession in her favour. The present appellant aggrieved by the said order, preferred a miscellaneous appeal in this Court, which was partly allowed with observation on 22.9.1987 that the auction purchaser Ram Das Singh and the purchaser Dilbaso Devi from Dilip Kumar Sinha shall be in joint possession of the entire eastern portion of the suit house. If they find any difficulty in joint possession, they may seek relief before appropriate forum for separation of their share. The first phase of litigation ends with this observation because none of the party moved before any higher Court in appeal. However, the purchaser from Dilip Kumar Sinha failed to get joint possession even after the direction of the Court and so the second phase of litigation started with the filing of the present suit for partition, by present respondent. The Court below, relying upon the pleadings, the evidence and the findings of the earlier litigation, decree the suit.
(3.) The present appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the suit, filed first appeal in this Court and the learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal. The appellant, thereafter, filed the present Letter Patent Appeal against the findings of the learned Single Judge.;