Amitav Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2012 and 07.08.2012 respectively passed in Partition Suit No. 54/2001 by the learned Sub -Judge -XI, Ranchi.
(2.) THE aforesaid suit was instituted by Ramavtar Sao -plaintiff, for grant of a decree for partition and carving out 1/4th share in the suit property, i.e., the plots of land appertaining to Khata No. 66 and 67 respectively situated at village Namkom, District - Ranchi. The plaintiff's case is that the suit land was recorded in the revisional survey in the name of Jageshwar Ram and Ganesh Ram -sons of Chhedi Ram. That Jageshwar Ram died leaving behind his only son, viz. Anand Sao, original defendant No. 1(since deceased) and Ganesh Ram died leaving behind two sons, Ramavtar Sao (plaintiff) and Lakhan Sao (defendant No. 2). That after the death of the recorded tenants, the plaintiff and defendant came in joint possession of the suit property. The further case of the plaintiff is that he requested for partition of the suit property on several occasions but the defendants did not pay any heed whereafter due to inconvenience felt in the jointness, the plaintiff preferred the suit for partition of the suit property, as described in Schedule A, of the plaint. The original defendant No. 1, Anand Sao (since deceased), in his written statement, stated that the property in question is the ancestral property which was purchased out of the fund of Jageshwar Sao, the father of the defendant. It is stated that a mutual partition took place on 05.05.1991 and the plaintiff has disposed off portion of the suit property in collusion with defendant No. 2 prior to the institution of the suit. He admitted in para 13 that the suit property is joint and is coparcenary. That since the plaintiff has sold some portions of land therefore the same may be adjusted. That half share of rest of the property should be divided between plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and half share should be allotted to him.
(3.) THAT during the pendency of the suit the original defendant No. 1 -Anand Sao died and his legal heirs/representatives were substituted as defendant No. 1/A to 1/G by order dated 17.02.2004. The substituted defendant i.e., the legal representative of defendant No. 1(since deceased), filed written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 or their predecessors in interest have no right, title or interest in the suit property, which is the exclusive property of the substituted defendants No. 1/A to 1/G, who are the absolute owners of the said property. That the suit property, in the cadastral survey record of right stood in the name of Gurudayal Kanhu, Bahira Kanhu and Ramnath Kanhu -all sons of Sukhori Kanhu. That Gurudayal and Bahira died issueless much before the preparation of the revisional survey record and their interest devolved upon their brother -Ramnath Kanhu, who also died before the revisional survey. That Ramnath Kanhu was survived by his widow -Mosammat Sukro, who inherited the suit property as the only legal heir and after her death, her only daughter -Nagmani became the sole owner of the suit property. Jageshwar Sao, i.e., father of original defendant No. 1, was the husband of Nagmani. It is alleged that Ganesh Sao, the brother of Jageshwar Sao, after the death of Jageshwar Sao, took undue advantage of the illiteracy of Nagmani and fraudulently got entered his name and the name of his deceased brother -Jageshwar Sao, in the R.S. Khatian and succeeded in his ill motive to grab the suit property and sold the land to different purchasers, who have not been made party to the present suit. Thus the substituted defendants have pleaded that the suit property was the exclusive property of original defendant No. 1. However, the substituted defendants have admitted that portions of suit property was sold by the plaintiff. It has been prayed that the suit be dismissed, as the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 had no right, title and interest in the suit property.;