(1.) Aggrieved of order dated 01.05.2010 passed in Tittle Suit No. 143 of 2003 by which issue no. 5; "Is the suit land sold by the defendant no. 3 in favour of defendant nos. 1 and 2 are genuine and legal", has been re-framed and issue no. 6 has been struck off vide application dated 17.04.2010 and liberty has been granted to the plaintiff to recall plaintiff's witness - P.W. 6 for marking sada sale deed of Samvat 2001, the petitioners have approached this Court.
(2.) Title Suit No. 143 of 2003 was instituted for a declaration and confirmation of plaintiff's right, title and possession over the suit property and for perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The suit was contested by the defendants claiming that land comprised in Khata No. 52, village - Hariharpur Jam Toli, P.S. Bero within Thana no. 78, District - Ranchi is recorded as Kaiyami land in the Revisional Survey recorded in the name of father and uncle of defendant no. 3 namely, Chander Sahu and Inder Sahu. Defendants claimed that father and uncle of defendant no. 3 constructed a house over the suit property and after their death, defendant no. 3 has inherited the suit property. He sold about 0.02 decimal land in plot no. 2783 in favour of defendant no. 1 and 0.02 decimal land in plot no. 2784 in khata no. 52 in favour of defendant no. 2 vide registered sale deed dated 27.04.1993. The plaintiff has claimed that defendant nos. 1 and 2 are members of Schedule Tribe. The plaintiff has asserted that in the year, 1949 the suit land was transferred in favour of his father namely, Sam Lohra by a sada sale deed for consideration of Rs. 19.00 and thereafter he constructed a small house over a portion of the suit land. After the parties led their evidence in Title Suit No. 143 of 2003 the aforesaid applications both dated 17.04.2010 were filed by the plaintiff.
(3.) Referring to a decision in "Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra", reported in 2009 AIR SCW 979, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that a sada sale deed cannot be taken into evidence and that too after the suit was posted for arguments Challenging legality of the impugned order by which issue no. 5 has been reframed, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that at this stage issue no. 5 could not have been re-framed and, in fact, issue no. 5 was initially correctly framed.