(1.) The plaintiff-petitioner by filing this writ petition has questioned the legality of the order dated 15.10.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division-III), Chaibasa in Title (Partition) Suit no. 07 of 2011, whereby the petition filed under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "the Code ") by the plaintiff to re-open the plaintiff’s evidence has been rejected.
(2.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
(3.) The facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint is that the plaintiff’s grandfather late Magraj Jangir, who had migrated from Nawalgarh in Rajasthan settled in Chaibasa, had nine sons and two daughters. Out of the nine sons, one Ratan Lal Jangir was the third and Mohan Lal Jangri was the fifth son. Ratan Lal Jangir was issueless. He adopted one daughter of younger brother Mohan Lal Jangir, who is the plaintiff of the suit, while she was one year old. In a brief ceremony, Mohan Lal Jangir and his wife following the social customs and rituals gave the plaintiff in adoption to Ratan Lal Jangir and his wife Durga Devi Jangir, who is defendant no.1, in the month of Nov., 1974. Since after the date of adoption, the plaintiff became the daughter of Ratan Lal Jangir and defendant no.1. In School Register, the name of Ratan Lal Jangir was entered in the father’s column. The said adopted father Ratan Lal Jangir during his lifetime through his earning had purchased two pieces of land, the details of which is given in item No.1 and item No.2 of the schedule at the foot of the plaint. However, the property mentioned in Item No.-1 was purchased by Ratan Lal Jangir in the name of his wife the defendant-respondent no.1. On the said plot, (item No.1), Ratan Lal Jangir later on constructed a pucca house and shifted in that house but as he was feeling isolated in his business, he brought the defendant-respondent no.2- Raj Kumar Jangir, who was the son of the sister of the defendant no.1 to help him in business. On 17th day of Feb., 1991, her adopted father Ratan Lal Jangir married the plaintiff, where after she came to her matrimonial home. The further pleading is that soon after the death of Ratan Lal Jangir, the defendant no.2 started negotiating with different persons to sell the suit properties. The plaintiff also persuaded her mother-defendant no.1 to give ⅓rd share in suit property to defendant-respondent no.2 considering his long association though he was not entitled for any share. Likewise, the plaintiff also demanded ⅓rd of her share but as the defendants refused to give her any share, the suit was filed.