PARASNATH SINGH Vs. FATEH BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 24.11.1983 confirming the Pleader Commissioner's Report and the final Decree dated 05.01.1984 passed by Sri S.K. Sinha, the learned Ist Subordinate Judge, Chapra in Partition Suit No. 105 of 1979.

(2.) It appears that the plaintiff-respondents filed partition suit No. 105 of 1979. The said suit was decreed primarily holding that the plaintiff-respondent have got half share in the suit property. Thereafter, final decree proceeding was initiated. Pleader Commissioner was appointed and after spot verification, he partitioned the suit property half and half. Thereafter, the Pleader Commissioner submitted his report. The defendants-appellants did not file any objection. Thereafter, the learned Court below by the impugned Judgment/Order dated 24.11.1983 accepted the Pleader Commissioner's Report confirmed it and directed to prepare final decree and further directed that the Pleader Commissioner's Report shall form part of the final decree. The defendants have filed this First Appeal against that final decree.

(3.) The learned senior counsel, Mr. Raghuwansh Singh, submitted that the Advocate Commissioner has wrongly and incorrectly classified the class I land as class III and class II and likewise wrongly classified class III land as class I or class II land. The learned Counsel further submitted that only after wrong classification, the defendants have been allotted class III land and class II lands whereas the plaintiffs have been allotted only class I lands. The learned Counsel further submitted that many of the lands/plots which are dihbasgit land but have been incorrectly shows as class I land. Plot No. 3816, i.e., Sahan land is joint among the 3 branches of Ram Khelawan Singh, Ram Charitar Singh and Ram Jabna Singh but the entire area has been allotted to the defendants measuring 16 dhurs. The learned Counsel further submitted that certain plots were not subject matter of suit but the Advocate Commissioner also partitioned those properties. The learned Counsel further submitted that valuable lands have been given to the plaintiffs and less value lands have been given to the defendants-appellants. On these grounds, the learned Counsel submitted that the final decree is liable to be set aside.