RAJENDRA Vs. SHAMBHU SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dtd. 30/1/2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) -VI Ranchi in Original Suit No.193 of 2017 whereby the petition filed under Order XXVI Rule 10A read with Sec. 151 of the CPC has been rejected by the learned court.

(3.) Mr. Yogendra Prasad the learned counsel for the petitioner /plaintiff submits that the Original Suit(Partition) No.193 of 2017 was instituted with respect of Khata Nos.98 and 99 of Village Upper Konki, Thana No.21, PS and District Ranchi, Khata No.166 Khesra Nos.42 and 44 of Village Sutiyamby, Thana No.8, PS Pithoria, District Ranchi and Khata No.294 of Village Pithoria, Thana No.9, PS Pithoria, District Ranchi stands recorded in the name of Khaintu Sonar and others and prayer was made for preliminary decree for partition of 1/6 share of the plaintiff and defendant no.16 jointly passed in respect of the said land prescribed in the schedule of the plaint. He submits that the summon has been issued by the learned trial court and the defendants have filed their respective written statement and also adduced their evidence. The defendant (DW2) namely Munni Devi who is the Mukhia of Gram Panchayat Pithoria has stated in her cross examination on seeing the Exhibit-2 that her signature is there in the genealogical table. He submits that defendants' genealogical table issued by the Mukhia has been accepted by her to the tune that her signature is there. However, the same genealogical table has been issued by the said Mukhia herself so far the plaintiff is concerned and that has been not accepted and in view of that the petition has been filed to sent the signature of the said Mukhia for verification. However, the learned court has erroneously rejected the same. He submits that in view of the provision made in Indian Evidence Act the learned court has erred in passing the said order and he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of K.Raja v. John Daniel and Others in CRP (PD) No.2302 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012. Relying on the said judgment, he submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered and as such, the impugned order may kindly be set aside.