SESH RAM Vs. BIMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The entire fulcrum, of, the res-controversia, whereupon, the contesting litigants, stand engaged, stands comprised in (a) qua after, the, execution of Ex.PW2/A, by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant, namely, one Prakash Chand, (b) whether his share in the suit khasra number(s), yet remained intact, with the consequential effect, whether, the plaintiffs are entitled, vis-a-vis, the espoused decree. Both the learned courts below declined, relief to the plaintiffs, wherefrom, the instant second appeal hence has arisen. However, a perusal of the verdicts, concurrently recorded, upon, Civil Suit No. 30/96, by the learned trial Court, and, thereafter, upon, Civil Appeal No. 177-P/XIII/04/2K, by the learned first Appellate Court, (c) disclose(s), vis-a-vis, both the learned Courts below, for hence non suiting the plaintiff, assigning a reason (d) qua rather there being an invalid partition, of suit khata No.9 min into two different khatas, inasmuch, as, initially into Khata No. 355, and, 358, thereafter into 486 and 489.

(2.) Without delving deep into the merits, of the afore reason, assigned concurrently, by both the learned courts below, rather the overwhelming factum probandum, hence, directly appertaining, to the res controversia, engaging the contesting litigants, (a) is, contrarily embodied, in, whether in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the execution of Ex.PW2/A, by one Prakash Chand, hence, thereafter his still retaining or not retaining, rather in the suit khata, and, in the suit khasra numbers, hence, any share therein. Since, the afore computations, are required to be made, upon, an allusion being made, vis-a-vis, the revenue records appertaining, to the stage whereat Ex.PW2/A, stood executed, inter se, the afore Prakash Chand, and, the vendee(s) therein, (b) and, also from, the, subsequent thereto jamabandis, as, appertaining to the suit khata or suit khasra number, and, also theirs carrying reflections, hence, squarely, and, precisely appertaining, to the share, of the afore Prakash Chand, being yet left intact therein. Lamentably, the afore preeminent factum probandum, has disappeared into oblivion, as, both, the learned courts below, appear, to untenably proceed to assign merit, to, the impermissibility, of, the afore sub division, of the, initially joint Khata No.9 into Khata No.355 and 358, and, thereafter into 486, and, 489, (c) obviously leaving aside, the afore requisite computations, and, calculations, for thereafter hence both rather determining, whether the plaintiffs, are entitled for, rendition of a decree, for permanent prohibitory injunction, (d) given Prakash Chand, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant, not being, left in the suit khasra number,rather any share therein, and, whereupon, the plaintiffs would stand validly entitled, for, rendition, of, the, espoused decree, (e) or upon Prakash Chand, and, subsequently his successors-in-interest, even after execution, of Ex.PW2/A, being yet left with a share, in, the, suit khata or in, the, suit kahsra numbers, thereupon, the requisite espousals would be, not accorded. Reiteratedly, the afore computation, is required to be made, in the afore manner, and, after allusions being made, to, the apposite jamabandis, as, appertaining to the suit khasra number or the suit khata, and, patently they remained rather unedeavoured, whereupon, the hereafter sequels, hence, stands sparked.

(3.) Even though, the afore infirmity, has constrained this Court, to, in its entirety, hence, remand the lis to the learned trial Court, for enabling the latter, to make, the afore computations, and, it thereafter rendering or declining, the espoused relief to the plaintiff, (I) as, all the issues, are, visibly appertaining, to the afore factum probandum, and, are hence insegregable and interlinked, (ii) and, hence in exception, to the principle, vis-a-vis, there being no wholesale remand, of, the lis, rather the afore insegragability(ies) or interconnectivities, inter se, all the issues, and, appertaining to the afore espoused relief, also constrain this Court, to, in its entirety, hence, remand the lis, to the learned trial Court.