Benilal Manjhi vs Laweshwar Marandi
2022 Latest Caselaw 2645 Jhar

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                   S.A. No. 523 of 2016
                                        -----

1. Benilal Manjhi

2. Babu Ram Manjhi

3. Nunulal Manjhi

4. Siban Manjhi

5. Shukar Mani Majhan

6. Saraswati Majhan .... Appellant(s) Versus

1. Laweshwar Marandi

2. Sudhir Marandi

3. Durjan Manjhi

4. Malin Manjhi

5. Shiblal Manjhi

6. Panoti Manjhain

7. Sita Manjhain

8. Huku Moni Manjhain .... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

-----

For the appellant(s): Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar , Advocate.

------

08/14.07.2022: Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This appeal has been filed by appellants challenging the judgment dated 15.7.2017, decree signed on 20.7.2016 passed by the Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Title (Partition) Appeal No. 12/2014 whereby, the Principal District Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants, affirming the judgment dated 30.4.1984 and the decree dated 12.8.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division-I (Sub-Judge-I), Dhanbad in Title Partition Suit No. 61/1982.

3. Final decree proceeding is under challenge. In Title Partition Suit No. 61 of 1982, the decree was prepared and the Pleader Commissioner was appointed, who submitted his report. Objection was raised by the appellant, herein, to the report of the Pleader Commissioner before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the said application on the ground that it was premature. Thereafter, the objection was raised again.

4. From the impugned judgment, I find that only grievance of the appellant is that the Pleader Commissioner has given fertile land to the respondent and has allocated non-fertile land in the share of the appellants. Further and the valuation of the land was not taken into consideration in carving out the share of the parties.

5. The appellate Court considered the objection raised and after going through the record arrived at a conclusion in para-4 of the judgment, which reads

as under;

"4. On perusal of the report, it appears that Pleader Commissioner's report is part of the decree and the Pleader Commissioner has prepared chart of the entire land, which was part of the suit and has mentioned the market value of each of the land and has prepared the report, carved out share on the basis of market value, nature and possession of the parties."

6. From the aforesaid fact, I find that the appellate court has dismissed the appeal holding that report as prepared after considering the market value each of the land and nature and possession of the parties.

7. The entire question before me is a question of fact, which has already been answered finally by the first appellate court in Title (Partition) Appeal No. 12/2014.

8. Thus, I find that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Anu/-C.P.2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)