DASHARATH MAHATO Vs. SHRIMATI RABANI MAHATO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mahato, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant, who was defendant no. 3 in the suit. He submits, there were two scheduled properties in suit. One was 'ka' schedule property and the other, 'kha' schedule property. Both were recorded as joint property in Revenue Survey Record of Rights (RSROR). That is the correct position because irrespective of the deeds of 1928 and 1935, showing Mohan Mahato to be purchaser of 'ka' schedule property, said person was one of four sons of Bahadur Mahato and scheduled properties were and are joint family properties. The purchase was made out of joint family fund. Record in RSROR is corroboration but both Courts below erred in appreciating the evidence. In fairness he adds, the point of limitation was not urged in the Courts below and cannot be taken here in second appeal.

(2.) Whether the learned Judges in the Courts below substantially erred in law in not considering the legal effect of the payment of rent by other than Mohan's heirs, as appearing in the rent receipts being exhibit 2 series and B series as the same reflects the nature of the property as joint indicating purchase of Ka schedule suit property from the nucleus fund of the joint family and accordingly the judgement is perverse."

(3.) He relies on judgment of Supreme Court in Sebastiao Luis Fernandes v. K.V.P. Shastri reported in (2013) 15 SCC 161, paragraphs 33 to 35. He submits, in paragraph 35 said Court relied on its earlier judgment in Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal reported in (2006) 5 SCC 545, wherefrom paragraph 24 was extracted and reproduced. He relies on clauses (ii) and (iii) in the extract. He submits, these clauses are respective interpretation on substantial questions of law arising in relation to contentious issue(s) and perversity. The questions suggested arise out of contentious issue regarding joint family purchase of property and corresponding entries in RSROR.