GIRJANANDAN PATHAK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nobody appears for the petitioners or the respondents.

(2.) Petitioners are aggrieved by the order contained in Annexure-3, passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the order contained in Annexure-5, passed by the Joint Director, Consolidation. The facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) Ghanshyam Pathak and Ayodhya Pathak were full brothers. Ghanshyam Pathak had a son Parmeshwar Pathak who died in 1933. Parmeshwar Pathak?s son Basudeo Pathak predeceased him and died in the year 1930 leaving behind his wife Rampati Kuer as his sole heir. Ayodhya Pathak had a son Raghunandan Pathak who died in the year 1944 and his son Bhagwan Pathak predeceased him and died in the year 1936. One Monaka Kuer filed a title suit claiming the title to the lands appertaining to Khata No. 43, Plot No. 40, measuring 19 decimals. The plaintiff?s case is that Raghunandan Pathak and Parmeshwar Pathak were separated although some of the lands remained in their joint possession. It is also said that Parmeshwar Pathak died in the year 1933 leaving behind Rampati Kuer as the sole heir. The claim is that Rampati Kuer sold the land in dispute to defendant no. 2 in the year 1947 and, therefore, it became necessary to file suit. The defendant i.e. Rampati Kuer?s case is that the plaintiff is not the daughter of Raghunandan Pathak and, therefore, cannot claim any right in the property. The title suit was dismissed. While dismissing the title suit it was held that the plaintiff was not the daughter of Raghunandan Pathak. The matter was finally decided by the judgment passed in second appeal in this High Court affirming the judgment and order passed in the title appeal. Therefore, conclusion is that Rampati Kuer had title and had validly executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant no. 2 and there was also a finding that Monaka Kuer was not the daughter of Raghunandan Pathak.