BHUKAN SAH Vs. RADHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal has been listed for orders on petition. The appellant was the defendant in the suit below and appellant in the first Court of appeal. The plaintiff is the respondent and has appeared. The interlocutory application is for stay of the preparation of final decree under appeal, insofar as it relates to the residential house.

(2.) IN my view, as plaintiff is the only contesting party and has appeared, the other respondent being defendant who has chosen not to appear nor has filed the appeal, it will serve no purpose in keeping the appeal pending.

(3.) IN my view, a substantial question of law thus arises on which both parties have already been heard. The substantial question of law is whether in my view the provisions of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession act, 1956 as prior to its amendment in the year 2005, was the trial Court and the appellate court correct in law in awarding a share to the plaintiff, who was a Class-I female heir of late Jibu Sah.