DEO SUNDARI DEVI Vs. RAMANUJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.2.1995 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 1737 of 1994 whereby and whereunder the order dated 12.3.1991/16.3.1991 passed by Consolidation Officer, Majorganj in Objection Case ' No. 769/1989, the order dated 28.12.92 passed by the Dy. Director, Consolidation, Sitamarhi in Consolidation Appeal No. 169/ 1991 and the order dated 11.11.93/18.11.93 passed by the Joint Director. Consolidation, Muzaffarpur in Revision No. 56/93 (annexures -9, 10 & 12 respectively in CWJC No. 1737/94) have been quashed and the case has been remanded back to the Consolidation Officer, Majorganj, Sitamarhi for a fresh decision.

(2.) IT is admitted case of the parties that the deceased Gopal Singh had three sons names, Indrajeet Singh, Brijmohan Singh and Sukhdayal Singh. The present three appellants, who were respondents 5. 6 and 7 in the writ application, represent the branch of late Jeetu Singh who was son of Brijmohan Singh. The present respondents no. 1 to 10 who were petitioners in the Writ Application are the descendants of Indrajit Singh. The disputes relates to land of RS Khata nos. 471. and 160 situates within the Mauza, Ratanpur, Thana no. 27, Anchal and PS Majorganj district Sitamarhi.

(3.) THE stand of the present appellants is that land or Khata no. 471 is joint property and the same has not been partitioned in between the appellants and respondents no.1 to 10 and further their case that late Jeetu Singh, son of Brijmohan Singh was the adopted son of Sukhdayal Singh vide registered deed of adoption dated 23.5.1935 and, therefore, Jeetu Singh was entitled to get 2/3 share in the joint property of Khata No. 471 as the adoption was in Kritrima Form under Mithila School. According to respondents the revisionai khatiyan was finally published in the year 1966 and the name of respondents no.1 to 10 and their ancestors were shown as owners of the land. The appellants did not file any objection against the said final publication of RS Khatiyan. The records of rights prepared during Consolidation was published in between February, 1988 and March, 1988 but the appellants did not file any objection. In the year 1989 late Jeetu Singh filed an objection u/s 10(d) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (in short as Act) for correction in the record of rights on the ground that land in question is joint family property. The Consolidation Officer rejected the prayer holding that there had been partition between respondents 1 to 10 and the appellants. The appellants then filed appeal before Dy. Director Consolidation who allowed the prayer and set aside the order of Consolidation Officer. Thereafter, the present respondents no. 1 to 10 preferred revision before the Joint Director, Consolidation who also dismissed the revision holding that the parties are joint.