- (1.) THESE appeals arise out of common judgment dated 20.3.2005 passed in Reference Cases Nos. 2 of 2001, 3 of 2001 and 4 of 2001 by Tribunal Judge, C.B.A. Act, Rajmahal Project Area, Lalmatia at Godda. Counsel appearing for the appellant (second party) submitted that the learned Tribunal did not decide whether the marriage between the Pradhan Kisku and Bitiya Baskey was in 'Gharjamai form or not. She further submitted that the Pradhan Kisku deserted Bitiya Baskey and therefore, the land reverted back to the second party. After considering the materials on record in detail, the court below recorded the following findings: - 28. "On careful scrutiny of the oral evidence of the both sides I find that even one of the witness of the 2nd party, namely, Jamadar Tudu examined as O.P.W -1 vide his evidence para18 has admitted the possession of Bitiya Baskey, her husband and her children on entire landed property of Jeetu Baskey. In this case the sole dispute raised on the side of the nd party is that the marriage of Bitiya Baskey with Pradhan Kisku was not performed in Gharjamai form, but admittedly, the above dispute cannot be decided in these Reference cases. However, the evidence and documents brought on the record clearly proves that Bitiya Baskey being the sole issue of her father late Jeetu Baskey has been living along with her husband and children in her parents house and in possession of the half of the lands of J.B. No. 120 which were exclusively recorded in the name of her father and her uncle Sugwa Baskey and she is paying rent of the same to the Government and has been in possession of the rent receipts. 29.In my view, the question of Gharjamai form of the marriage of Pradhan Kisku with Bitiya Baskey is not relevant in the present Reference cases, particularly, in this view that before the Survey Settlement of the year 1930 -32 separate possession of the each of the Recorded Tenants are found recorded against all Dag numbers (plot numbers) of J.B. No. 120 including the father of Bitiya Baskey and her uncle Sugwa Baskey. 30.First party has filed a Registered Deed of Will No. 159 dated 21.2.1946 to show that Jeetu Baskey during his life time on 21.2.1946 executed a deed admitting the Gharjamai form of the marriage of Pradhan Kisku with Bitiya Baskey. The aforesaid document prima facie proves the case of the 1st party also. 31. In this case on behalf of the 2nd party no any document regarding possession of the member of the 2nd party on the disputed land has been filed while one of the witness of the nd party, namely, Jamadar Tudu has admitted the possession of the 1st party on the entire land of Jeetu Baskey. 32.Thus, on the basis of the above discussion of the oral and documentary evidence of the parties I find that Bitiya Baskey and her husband Pradhan Kiskyu has been coming in possession of the land in question for which these three Reference cases have come before this Court for decision. 33.Accordingly, it is held that only Bitiya Baskey and her husband Pradhan Kisku are entitled for the entire compensation amount of the land in question detailed in the Reference letters which have been acquired by the Central Government and 80% of the same have been deposited vide three different cheques before this Court. It is further held that Pradhan Kisku has got a good case to be added as one of the member of the 1st party under Order -1 Rule -10 C.P.C. in the present cases. 34.Thus, in the light of the above discussion and finding given thereon, in the r e s u l t the application filed under Order -1, Rule -10 C.P.C. on behalf of Pradhan Kisku is allowed and, accordingly, it is ordered that only Bitiya Baskey and her husband Pradhan Kisku are entitled to receive the compensation regarding the lands acquired by the Central Government of the aforesaid three Reference Cases. Let an award be prepared accordingly.  No ground has been made out for interference with the said findings. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. However, no costs. ;