SHEO SAHU Vs. LILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff/appellant against the appellate judgment and decree dated 30.7.82 passed by 2nd Addl. District Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Appeal No. 6/81 confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.1.81 passed by the 4th Addl. Subordinate Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Partition (title) suit no. 22/57 dismissing the plaintiff 's/appellant 's suit filed mainly for a declaration that the suit land described in schedule II to the plaint has been allotted to the plaintiff in an amicable partition; the same is in possession of the plaintiff and that his title and possession is not affected by the decree for partition passed in Partition Suit No. 2/47 by the court of Subordinate Judge, Palamau which decree has been alleged by the plaintiff to be fraudulent, collusive, void and not binding on him since he was not a party to that suit. There is also an alternative relief sought in the plaint that if the court holds that there has been no partition in the past then a decree for partition may be passed.

(2.) THIS appeal against the concurrent findings of the courts below was admitted on 26.2.83 and the only substantial question of law raised and formulated was as follows :

(3.) THE plaintiff 's case, in brief, is that the three sons of Deoki Sahu died in jointness. It is the further case of the plaintiff that after the death of Sheo Shanker Sahu defendant nos. 8 and 9 i.e. the widows rights in favour of the coparceners consisting of the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 7 on the intervention of punches who gave an award making arrangement for maintenance of two widows and a daughter of Sheo Shanker Sahu. The punches allegedly divided the entire ancestral properties in two equal shares; one schedule was allotted to Nameshwar Sahu and his branch and the other to Motilal Sahu and his branch and, accordingly, the two sets of co -sharers came in possession over their separate schedules of land. According to the plaintiff, after his marriage in 1943 his wife could not pull on well with her mother -in -law and hence in 1945 he separated from his father in residence and in the year, 1951 there was a private partition in which the plaintiff was allotted a separate takhta of one anna seven pie four karant as given in the schedule at the foot of the plaint. Thereafter, a registered partition deed was effected in the year, 1955 and, accordingly, the co -sharers including the plaintiff came in possession of their respective takhtas.