MARACHHI DEVI Vs. MANAGER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the decree of the 3rd Addl. District Judge, Siwan dated 30th August, 1991 whereby he affirmed the decree of the Additional Munsif, Siwan dated 2nd December, 1988 whereby the suit brought by respondent No. 1 Manager Singh was decreed by granting declaration that the plaintiff had title to the disputed land.

(2.) Although both the Courts below have found against the appellants, Mr. S.C. Surya, learned Counsel for the appellants has tried to demonstrate that the finding recorded by the trial Court was not consistent with the evidence and many salient points in favour of the appellants were ignored by the trial Court as also by the appellate Court. Learned Counsel has vehemently attacked the judgment of the appellate Court on the ground that the judgment is too sketchy one to be sustained. It is submitted that the appellate Court has failed to discharge the responsibility of the appellate Court in terms of Order XLI Rule 31 C.P.C.

(3.) Following substantial questions of law were formulated by the learned Judge while admitting this appeal: (i) whether the Court of appeal below is justified in giving findings regarding the alleged relationship between the vendor of the plaintiff and the last holder of the property in question namely Gulabo Kuer without making reference and consideration of the evidence adduced by the defendants particularly when it is final Court of fact? (ii) whether the Court of appeal below is justified in giving finding on the basis of the consideration made by the trial Court without making consideration itself independently? (iii) whether the findings of the Courts below are based on correct application of principles of Hindu Law in the matter of inheritance and succession after the death of Gulabo Kuer? (iv) whether the findings arrived at by the Courts below that the absence of the names of either Deo Sundari Devi or Bachha Prasad in earlier T.S. No. III of 1958 does not show that they were not related to Chandra Shekhar Singh or his widow Gulabo Kuer are justified when they have failed to consider that they were necessary party after the death of the father of Chandra Shekhar Singh if Deosundari Devi was his alleged daughter as the suit was disposed of at that time and shares were allotted to the sharers?