In compliance with 9-page long judgement dated April 9, 2018 by Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, which set aside the 11-page long order dated July 16, 2014 by Justice Kishore Kumar Mandal, in Uma Pandey & Anr. vs. Munna Pandey & Ors. (2025), Justice Khatim Reza of Patna High Court delivered a 23-page long judgment dated October 31, 2025 wherein, he restored and affirmed the judgment and decree dated July 12, 2005 passed by the Sub Judge Vth, Gopalganj in Title (Partition) Suit No. 21 of 1993. Justice Reza of the High Court set aside the he impugned judgment and decree of 2008 passed by the Additional District Judge-Ist, Gopalganj in a Title Appeal of 2005/06 of 2007 in pursuance of the Supreme Court's judgement authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre. Notably, prior to his retirement on January 21, 2018 in his order dated January 25, 2017, Justice Mandal, son of Justice R.P.Mandal recorded: "Perused the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court placed at Flag- ‘X’ and ‘Y’. Let those orders be retained on file. Office shall proceed accordingly."
Complying with Supreme Court's judgement Justice Khatim Reza restores judgement, Justice Reza observed:''....this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2008 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Gopalganj in Title Appeal No. 77 of 2005/06 of 2007 whereby the appeal filed by the defendants was allowed and the plaintiffs’ suit for partition was dismissed is not sustainable in the eyes of law and on facts.''
The judgement was delivered upon hearing the Second Appeal which was preferred against the judgment and decree dated July 14, 2008 passed by the Additional District Judge-Ist, Gopalganj in Title Appeal No. 77 of 2005/06 of 2007 whereby the lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2005 passed by the Sub-Judge-Vth, Gopalganj in Title (Partition) Suit No. 21 of 1993.
The appellants who approached the High Court were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court and the respondents were defendants in the Partition Suit. The plaintiffs/appellants filed Title (Partition) Suit No. 21 of 1993 for partition of their half share in the property described in the schedules of the plaint.
The case of the parties was as under:
The plaintiffs/appellants and the defendants/respondents are descendants of the common ancestor, namely, Ramkishun and are related to one another. The genealogy was admitted by both the sides.
The case of the plaintiffs, was that the lands in suit were ancestral property of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. The case of the plaintiffs was that due to disturbance by the family members in the family there was separation in the year 1970 by both the parties but the ancestral property as well as purchased property was not partitioned by metes and bounds, whereafter, they started cultivating some lands jointly. The property mentioned in Schedule-II of the plaint was purchased from joint nucleus and was in joint possession. It was also pleaded that some of the ancestral property was exchanged and some of the suit property was sold jointly. It was also contended that the defendants started claiming that suit property was partitioned through memorandum of partition which was totally false and there was no partition between the parties and if defendants produce any documents of partition the same was forged as plaintiffs did not participate in any partition. On the basis of pleadings, the plaintiffs/appellants sought relief for partition of half share in the Schedule-I to IV properties.
On summons, Munna Pandey, Tuna Pandey, Lisha Devi, Sudha Devi, Yogendra Pandey, Prem Pandey @ Kanaiha Pandey, Priyam Kumari, Priyanka Kumari and Bijendra Pandey, the defendant nos. 1 to 7/defendants Ist set appeared and filed their written statement. Apart from ornamental objection against the pleadings of the plaintiffs/appellants, the defendants Ist set pleaded that entire family property was not included in the suit land, in as much as, the purchasers were not made party to the suit, hence the suit was bad for non-joinder of the party. The suit was also bad for partial partition. The plaintiffs had sold 11 Bigha 10 Katthas land of village-Bhitbharua and other lands of Ajiyapur and Kabilaspur which were not included in the suit lands of Khata No. 23 of village- Hajiyapur, which belong to others and those were included in the suit land. The lands of Khata No. 17, Plot Nos. 310 and 338 also belonged to other persons. It was also the case of the defendant-Ist set that partition had already taken place between the parties by metes and bounds. The purchasers of the parties were in possession of their purchased land in the names of his two sons. The partition by metes and bounds had already taken place in the year 1936 and the ancestral purchased property from joint family income were partitioned half and half between both the parties. Raghunandan Pandey and Sukhlal Pandey @ Shivnandan Pandey separated before 1936 and later in the year 1936 Mahendra Pandey were one side and Raghunandan Pandey on the other side partitioned the properties half and half and a memorandum of kora deed of partition was prepared on September 5, 1936 but the same in due course of time was damaged and as such another memorandum of partition was prepared on October 22, 1970 wherein, Rama Pandey was on one side and Uma Pandey was on the other side and both of them put their respective signatures over the same. In this memorandum of partition, there was some modification also. Panches also put their signatures over this memorandum of partition. Accordingly, the parties were dealing their properties as per their share. The properties allotted to the ancestor of the plaintiffs was detailed in Schedule-II of the written statement of the defendants-Ist set and properties allotted to ancestors of the defendants was described in Schedule-I of the written statement. After partition Rama Pandey purchased 18 Katthas 16 dhurs bearing Plot Nos. 517 and 518 in village-Hajiyapur and was in possession of the same. The plaintiffs had no concern with this land.
Defendant no. 12 and defendant nos. 18 to 21 appeared in the suit and filed their written statement separately but they had not adduced their evidence nor cross examined PWs or DWs. After filing of their written statement they left the pairvi of the case. Only defendants Ist set had contested the suit.
In the light of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court formulated ten issues. The Trial Court on analyzing the evidence and materials on record held that plaintiffs were entitled for partition of half share in Schedule-I and Schedule-III properties and also in respect of Plot Nos. 375, 424, 453 and 539 of Schedule-II properties of the plaint.
The Trial Court also held that all the other purchased lands in the name of defendants were their self-acquired property. The property in suit sold by the plaintiffs shall be deducted from their share and the Trial Court decreed the suit and directed that a preliminary decree be drawn up accordingly.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendants Ist set/respondents filed Title Appeal. The lower Appellate Court allowed the defendants appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. The plaintiffs/appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court filed the Second Appeal before the High Court.
After hearing the parties, a Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal vide order dated July 16, 2014. Against the judgment and order of the High Court, the plaintiffs filed Civil Appeal No. 3657 of 2018 by way of Special Leave in the Supreme Court. The relief was granted by the Supreme Court. After hearing, the Court set aside the judgment and order dated July 16, 2014 passed by a Bench of the High Court in this Appeal and remanded the Second Appeal and directed the High Court to decide this appeal on merits.
The Supreme Court also formulated substantial questions of law which are as follows:-
(i). Whether findings recorded by the first Appellate court on Exhibit-A for allowing the defendants’ first appeal and, in consequence, reversing the judgment/decree of the trial court is legally and factually sustainable?
(ii). What is the true nature of Exhibit-A? Can it be termed as “partition deed” or a document recognizing a factum of partition already effected between the parties in relation to the suit land?
(iii). Whether Exhibit-A binds the plaintiffs and, if so, how and to what extent?
(iv). Whether Exhibit-A requires registration and, if so, its effect?
(v). Since Exhibit-A was exhibited in evidence without any objection, whether any objection about its admissibility or legality can now be raised by the appellants in second appeal and, if so, its effect?
The Second Appeal was admitted in the High Court on January 10, 2023 and the substantial questions of law, which was framed by the Supreme Court were incorporated for just decision of the appeal.
Justice Reza observed: "31. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as upon perusal of the materials on records, it is held that Ext. A is unregistered partition deed which required registration under Section 17 (1) (B) of the Registration Act and without registration, it is inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, Ext. A does not bind the plaintiffs. 32. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law formulated by the Apex Court in this regard are answered in favour of the appellants. 35. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2005 passed by the Sub Judge Vth, Gopalganj in Title (Partition) Suit No. 21 of 1993 is restored and affirmed. 36. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. 37. There shall be no order as to costs.....39. Let the lower Court records be transmitted to the Courts below forthwith."
No comments:
Post a Comment