MANWATI DEVI Vs. DHURANDHAR SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the appellants is present.

(2.) This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dtd. 18/12/2018 (decree signed on 5/1/2019) passed by the learned District Judge-III, Godda allowing the Title Appeal No. 11 of 2010 and setting aside the judgment dtd. 30/4/2010 (decree signed on 14/5/2010) passed by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Godda in Title Suit No. 318 of 1997.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the present appeal is confined only with respect to Schedule-A property which the plaintiff No. 1 (wife of Amir Sah) claimed that it was self-acquired property of Amir Sah. The learned counsel has further submitted that so far as Schedule-B property is concerned, the same was claimed to be the self-acquired property of the plaintiff no.1. He submits that the defendants had also claimed that there was a partition by virtue of partition deed dtd. 13/4/1992. He has referred to internal page 16 of the trial court's judgment and has submitted that the learned trial court held that the partition deed dtd. 13/4/1992 was void, illegal, forged, fabricated and inoperative and it was also declared that defendant 1 st party and defendant 2nd party had no right, title and interest over the suit land and further that the Schedule-B property was only the property of plaintiff no. 1.