SHEO PRASAD Vs. KISHUNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri B.Dayal learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anil Kumar Mishra learned counsel for the respondents. The appeal is dismissed. However, the following findings recorded by the lower appellate court. "On the contrary the evidence shown that the disputed property belonged to Smt. Neoki and Baul. It is, therefore,no right to contend that Baul became the sole owner of the disputed property by survivership and since it was a co-purcenary property the plaintiff would have no share. The evidence shows that some of the property belonged to Baul himself and the another property was of his mother. So the plaintiff has 1/4th share in the disputed properties. There is no dispute that she is the daughter of Baul. This fact was no challenged before me. So far as the right and interest of the present defendants are concerned they have not been proved by any evidence on record. But the defendants have alleged that Buddu has executed an agreement to sell in their favour and put them in possession. The documents have not been filed for reasons best known to the defendants. Consequently the case of defendants has to be rejected where unwarranted has only case of the plaintiff with regard to the partition of one co-sharer of the disputed property". Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that he has no quarrel of 1/4 th share of the plaintiff. However, the other findings recorded by the appellate court are unsustainable and no other issue either by the trial court or lower appellate court. Therefore, there was no occasion to recall advertisement right of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to this proposition that if there was no liss about the findings recorded by the lower appellate court and no such issues were framed. There was no occasion to record such findings. Those findings are no worth to be read in any proceeding in any court.