Deleted vs Unknown
2023 Latest Caselaw 2000 Jhar

                                   1      S.A. No. 04 of 2005 with S.A. No. 33 of 2005



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             Second Appeal No. 04 of 2005
1. Deleted
2(i). Dilip Ojha
2(ii). Pankaj Ojha
2(iii). Anuj Ojha
2(iv). Santosh Ojha
3.      Abadh Kishore Ojha @ Abadh Ojha
4(a). Arun Ojha
4(b). Anil Ojha
4(c). Sunil Ojha
4(d). Suman Kr. Ojha
4(e). Sunita Kumari
5. Bal Mukund Ojha
6. Ramesh Ojha                              ... Appellants
                            -Versus-
1(i). Indra Narayan Mishra
1(ii). Anil Mishra
1(iii). Sunil Mishra
1(iv). Mitlesh Mishra
1(v). Jitnesh Mishra
1(vi). Shailesh Mishra
2A(i). Sumittra Devi
2A(ii). Sanjay Tiwari
2A(iii). Dhanjay Tiwari
2A(iv). Rinku Pandey
2A(v). Nitu Tiwari
2A(vi). Pammi Tiwari
3.       Pratibala Devi @ Umawati Devi
4.       Satyanarayan Tiwary
5.       Siddique Mian
6.       Jalil Mian
7.       Savitri Devi
8.       Madhusudan Tiwary
9.       Jagdamba Devi
10.      Lalita Devi
11.      Namita Devi                        ... Respondents
                             With
                   Second Appeal No. 33 of 2005
    Satya Narain Tiwary                     ... Appellant
                             -Versus-
1(a). Indra Narayan Mishra
1(b). Anil Mishra
1(c). Shailesh Mishra
1(d). Sunil Mishra
1(e). Jitendra Mishra
1(f). Mithalesh Mishra
2A(i). Sumitra Devi
2A(ii). Dhananjay Tiwari
                                                   2        S.A. No. 04 of 2005 with S.A. No. 33 of 2005



            2A(iii). Sanjay Tiwari
            2A(iv). Rinku Pandey
            2A(v). Nitu Tiwari
            2A(vi). Pammi Tiwari
            3.       Pratibala Devi @ Umabati Devi
            4.       Expunged
            5(a). Dilip Ojha
            5(b). Anuj Ojha
            5(c). Santosh Ojha
            5(d). Pankaj Ojha
            5(e). Meena Devi
            5(f).     Rekha Devi
            5(g). Sania Devi
            6.       Abadh Kishore Ojha
            7(a). Arun Ojha
            7(b). Anil Ojha
            7(c). Sunil Ojha
            7(d). Suman Ojha
            7(e). Sunita Kumari
            8.       Balmukund Ojha
            9.       Ramesh Ojha
            10.      Savitri Devi
            11.      Madhu Sudan Tiwary
            12.      Jagdamba Devi
            13.      Lalita Devi
            14.      Namita Devi
            15.      Siddique Mian
            16.      Jalil Mian                                   ... Respondents
                                          -----

            CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                          -----

For the Appellants : Mr. Ajay Shankar, Advocate (In S.A.-04/2005) Mr. Nitesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. S.K. Sahay, Advocate (In S.A.-33/2005) For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate (In both cases) For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate (In both cases) For Respondent Nos.5-6 : Mr. Kaushalendra Prasad, Adv. (In S.A.-04/2005) For Respondent Nos.15-16 : Mr. Kaushalendra Prasad, Adv. (In S.A.-33/2005)

-----

24/09.05.2023 Heard Mr. Ajay Shankar, learned counsel for the appellants in Second

Appeal No.04 of 2005 and Mr. S.K. Sahay, learned counsel for the appellant

in Second Appeal No.33 of 2005, Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, learned counsel

for respondent no.1 and Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for

respondent no.2.

2. Both the second appeals have been filed for setting aside the

judgment and decree passed by the learned 3 rd Additional & District Judge

(F.T.C.), Jamtara dated 30.11.2004/16.12.2004 in Title Appeal No.7 of

1992/12 of 2004 by which he has been pleased to allow the appeal filed by

defendant-1st party and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the

learned Sub Judge, Jamtara in Title Suit No.36/1980 dated 10.02.1992/

20.02.1992.

3. The plaintiff instituted the suit for partition against defendant no.1,

defendant 2nd party and defendant 3rd party for a preliminary decree for

1/4th share over A, B, C, D, E, F and G schedule properties of the plaint in

favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants as well as for a final

decree as per preliminary decree be prepared thereby appointing Amin

Commissioner and for delivery of possession over the decreetal lands

through process of the court and for a permanent injunction restraining the

defendant 3rd party not to disturb the possession of the plaintiff over any

portion of the suit land. It was stated in the suit that the recorded tenant

Larulal Tiwari had landed properties in several mouzas their description has

been given in Schedule A to G of the plaint over an area measuring of 118

acres. The said recorded tenants of Larulal Tiwari had only two daughters

namely Sindhubala Davi and Kapur Bala Davi. The Larulal Tiwari died in the

year 1950 leaving behind his widow namely Sumitra Devi and one daughter

Kapur Bala and grand son namely Ram Bharosh Ojha and grand daughter

Gulab Devi as Sindhubala Devi predeceased to her father- Laru Lal Tiwari.

The further case of the plaintiff was that since the Laru Lal Tiwari had no

sons, hence, he kept his two daughters, in his house alongwith his her

husband namely Dharanidhar Ojha being the husband of Sindhubala Devi

and Shankar Prasad Tiwari daughter and son and of Sindhubala Devi took

birth at village Dhanjori and during their minority, their mother Sindhubala

died and hence they have been looked after by their grandmother Sumitra

Devi and mausi Kapurbala Devi. The further case of the plaintiff was so long

Laru Lal Tiwari was alive the entire properties was in his exclusive

possession and after his death his widow Sumitra Devi succeeded to the

entire estate became absolute owner of the same after passing of Hindu

Succession Act, 1956. It has further been stated in the plaint that after the

death of Sindhubala Devi, her husband Dharanidhar Ojha brought his

second wife into his house at village Dhanjori. From his second wife, five

sons only took birth. The plaintiff has been married with on Indra Narayan

Mishra of village Gaura in 1952 and Rambharosh Ojha being the son of

Sindhu Bala Devi had been married with Putubala Devi in the year 1967 and

after that Rambharosh Ojha became traceless and there is no trace found,

though serious search is being made. It was the further case of the plaintiff

that after the death of Larulal Tiwari relation between Dharanidhar Ojha

and Shankar Prasad Tiwari became strain, so Sumitra Devi being the

absolute owner of the suit land separated both of them thereby allowing

some lands to be retained for maintenance of Rambharosh Ojha and Gulab

Devi as both are minor at that time. Sumitra Devi being the absolute owner

of the entire lands had died in January 1978 leaving her one daughter

Kapurbala Devi and one son and daughter namely Rambharosh Ojha and

Gulab Devi being the sons and daughters of her predeceased daughter-

Sindhubala Devi as her next heirs and successors. It was further case of the

plaintiff that after the death of Sumitra Devi relation between Shankar

Prasad Tiwari and Dharanidhar Ojha became too strain resulting in several

litigation. It was further stated in the plaint that the lands of Dharanidhar

Ojha was entrusted to cultivate the land for the maintenance of Gulab Devi

and her brother Rambharosh Ojha as both were the minors but

subsequently Dharanidhar Ojha started mis-appropriating the major share

of the produce which forbidden by the plaintiff and started cultivating the

same with the help of her husband Indra Narayan Mishra. It was further

case of the plaintiffs that Dharanidhar Ojha started quarrel with the

plaintiffs as well as her husband with respect to the plot in question. In

1979, Dharanidhar Ojha again started creating trouble in the matter of

harvesting for which a proceeding u/s 144 Cr.P.C. had also been enunciated

and in the said proceeding Dharanidhar Ojha had filed show-cause claiming

their prescriptive right, title and interest over the plot in question with a

basis of forged and fabricated documents. The plaintiff's further case was

that during the lifetime of Sumitra Devi, some lands were allotted to

Dharanidhar Ojha only in lieu of maintenance of present plaintiff and her

brother as both were minors hence the possession of Dharanidhar Ojha

over the said plots shall be deemed to be permissive possession. The show-

cause filed by Dharanidhar Ojha in proceeding u/s 144 Cr.P.C. as well as 107

Cr.P.C. claiming there independent claim over the suit land against the

interest of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and as such Dharanidhar Ojha

along with his son from second wife have been impleaded as defendant 3 rd

party in the suit for declaration that they have got no right over any portion

of the suit property and also for permanent injunction against them. Since

Rambharosh Ojha became traceless for many years and hence his wife

Pratibala Devi being the sole heir of her husband has been impleaded as

defendant 2nd party. The properties described in Schedule-A to E are the

Ejmal landed property residential house as shown in Schedule-F and

Schedule-G described for Ejmal trees. The plaintiff's further case is that to

avoid litigation, she approached defendant no.1 for amicable portion of the

properties in suit in the month of March, 1980 but defendant no.1

expressed her inability and as such finding no option the plaintiff filed the

suit for partition of the suit properties having 1/4 th share in the suit land

along with other reliefs.

4. The defendants were summoned filed written statements separately.

In course of the proceeding of the suit some other defendants also

intervened and they were made intervenor defendants Ist party and IInd

party respectively. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement separately,

challenging the maintainability of the suit alleging inter alia that the suit is

bad for various defect. It is pleaded that Larulal Tiwari was sonless he has

settled with his daughters and their husbands at his place and in order to

avoid future dispute and for maintaining peace and harmony he had

effected a family settlement of Kartick 1352 B.S. By the said family

settlement he partitioned all his properties among his two daughters and

made provisions for maintaining for his wife. Since then the parties began to

possess their respective shares separately. Larulal Tiwary died in 1950 and

widow died in 1978. Their shradh were performed out of the expenses

contributed by the branches of Sindhu Bala and Kapur Bala. The deed of

family settlement executed on 15th Kartick 1352 B.S. Laru Lal Tiwari is

unfortunately missing. On the death of Sumitra Devi the properties were

partitioned equally between the two branches. Due to special love and

affection, her father had given her plot nos.86 and 89 of Mouza Dhanjori

apart from the other lands allotted to her. Ultimately this defendant is in

possession of two plots and half of the rest of the suit properties. Defendant

No.1, her husband and children constructed two storied pucca and other

houses, including a pucca well on plot no.80 of mouza Dhanjori and planted

large number of trees in the said plot, out of their separate fund and income

without any objection from any corner. This family settlement earlier as

stated above is binding upon the parties in the present suit is not

maintainable. Alternatively, it was also pleaded in the case that the family

settlement is not accepted that in that the circumstances the defendant

No.1 is entitled to 1/2 share. However it is stated that there is no question

of fresh partition as there was already partitioned and family settlement in

between the parties.

5. Defendant No.3 filed a separate written statement challenging the

maintainability of the suit alleging inter alia that the suit is bad for non-

joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. Ram Bharosh is alive and his

wife defendant No.2 has been wrongly pleaded in the present case. No

process has been served upon defendant No.2. Ram Bharosh is still alive

and he occasionally comes to village Dhanjori as well as house in different

village. He is however to some extent detached himself from family life and

has been moving with some 'Babajis' at different place of pilgrimage in the

country apparently in search of God. This defendant and his other relation

have seen him even about a year ago in Bhagalpur and other places. It was

further stated that in the extent of share of claim of the plaintiff is wrong.

She cannot be entitled to any share in the house as given in Schedule F and

G inasmuch as these defendants has constructed pucca building over the

same out of their personal income and has grown trees over the same. This

defendant has asserted that Laru Lal Tiwari got his eldest daughter Sindhu

Bala married with defendant No.3 in 1935 and immediately after marriage

he transfer about 41-52 acres of land belong to him in five mouzas in favour

of these defendants. So that the latter and his wife and children could

sustained themselves from these lands. He also transferred about some

area of lands at some time in favour of son-in-law Shankar Prasad Tiwary.

Since both his daughters were married on the same day and both the sons

in laws were kept by him permanently in his house. The above arrangement

was effected by him by way of a family settlement to avoid bickering in the

family. Larulal Tiwary had a total area of about 118.00 acres of land in five

mouza. After transferring 82/83 acres of land in favour of his both son-in-

laws, he further transferred 4.19 acres of land bearing plot nos. 28,29,33,34

and 27 of mouza Dhanjuri in favour of his agnates Ras Bihari Tiwari and

others. He kept remaining lands with himself and his wife. Larulal Tiwari

had became much old at the time of marriage of his two daughters and he

had no chance of begetting son and hence he treated his son-in-laws as his

sons and out of affection he had transferred the lands. The defendant

started possessing the lands allotted to him independently as his own right

to the knowledge of all and he possessed then adversely to Larulal Tiwari

and by 1948 he acquired a prescriptive title and an occupancy right therein.

The defendant's wife Sindhu Bala died in 1944. Thereafter Larulal got again

married with the daughter of his Sala Markhan Choubey and continued to

treat him as his near and dear one. It is pleaded that after the defendant's

second marriage Larulal found that there might be some dispute between

his two sons-in-law after his death and in order to avoid the same he

executed a family settlement paper along with his wife Sumitra Devi on 15 th

Kartick 1952 B.S. corresponding to November, 1945 in favour of this

defendant and defendant No.1 Kapur Bala in respect of the suit properties.

Through the said family settlement paper, 4.19 acres of land allotted to

Rash Bihari Tiwary and others was confirmed and some lands being plot

no.409, 221, 224, 110 of mouza Dhanjuri and plot no.363 comprising a total

area 30.11 acres were allotted to Sumitra Devi and remaining suit plots

herein were left with this defendant no.1 Kupur Bala in equal share as

before. In 1973-74 a ceiling case bearing L.C.C. No.46/445 of 1973-74 was

started in the court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector. This defendant as

well as Shankar Tiwari both filed objection on the basis of the family

settlement effected by Larulal Tiwai and papers were also produced before

the court and after inquiry it was dropped on 6.2.1976. This defendant has

all along been paying the rent for the lands allotted to him through paper.

After the death of Sumitra Devi her 30.11 acres of land devolved upon

defendant No.1 as well as Ram Bharosh and plaintiff Gulab Devi in which

the plaintiff has got share.

6. Intervenor defendant 1st party filed written statement challenging the

maintainability of the suit alleging inter alia that Laru lal was the cousin

brother of Asharam Tiwary predecessor in interest of these interevenor

defendants. Larulal having no male issue and having loss hope of having a

son develop great love and affection with his nephew Rash Bihari Tiwary

and wished that Rash Bihari should performed the last rites and as such he

permanently settled 4.19 decimals of land in plot no. 28, 29, 33 and 34 only

a few years before last survey. Larulal permanently settled these plots with

his nephew and since then he has been continuing in possession and so

also this defendants was the heirs of late Rash Bihari Tiwary. The suit land

has been acknowledged by Larulal in the settlement which was entered into

between defendant No.1 Kapur Bala and Rambharosh which has been

witnessed by member of villagers. There are certificate and other papers to

show regarding right, title and interest of this defendants on these plots and

as such plaintiff cannot have any claim in respect of these plots.

7. Intervenor defendant 2nd party has come forward with a specific case

by filing written statement alleging inter alia that one Nasir Mian was

working in the house of Larulal and due to paucity of lands Nasir Mian get

Kurfa settlement of the said plot claimed by intervenor defendant 1 st party

and out of love and affection, Larulal granted settlment by way of Kurfa with

regard to four plot on 10 th Pous 1342 B.S. in favour of Nasir Mian at the rate

of Rs.15/ per year since the said Kurfa Nasir Mian came in possession of the

lands and cultivated paddy thereon. After the death of Nasir Mian his sons

Makbul Mian, Budhu Mian and Manager Mian acquired right title, and

interest and after their death these defendants with the co-sharers are in

actual cultivating possession of the same. They have perfected right, title

and interest over the same and now the plaintiff nor defendant 1 st party can

have any right, title and interest in respect of these four plots.

8. Title Suit No.36/1980 was instituted in the above background and the

learned trial court has framed 11 issues to decide the suit. The learned trial

court has been pleased to decree the suit in part and out of 113.90 acres of

the suit lands, the plaintiff was entitled to 1/4 th share as described in

Schedule A, B, C, D and E of the plaint, however she was not held to be

entitled to any share in the houses constructed by other defendants as

described in Schedule-E and trees as described in Schedule G of the plaint.

Defendant No.1 Kapur Bala was entitled to 42.96 acres of land and

remaining land given in schedule of the plaint will be allotted to defendant

no.3. An Amin Commissioner was also directed to be appointed on the

prayer of any of the parties to carve out the shares of the respective

parties, who while allotting the share will consider and will not disturb the

actual convenient possession of any of the parties without giving reasons.

In this way, the suit was decreed by the learned trial court. Aggrieved with

this decree passed in the suit, the 1st defendant filed the appeal which was

numbered as Title Appeal No.7 of 1992/12 of 2004 which was decided vide

judgment dated 30.11.2004 by the learned 3 rd Additional District & Sessions

Judge, F.T.C., Jamtara. The learned appellate court has been pleased to

allow the appeal modifying the share in favour of the parties and has been

pleased to set aside the judgment of the learned trial court passed in Title

Suit No.36/1980 and held that the appellant-defendant 1 st party is entitled

for a share of eight annas in the property of Larulal Tiwari and the plaintiff

is entitled for 1/4th share over the properties of 118.09 acres and not from

113.90 acres and defendant no.3 is not entitled for having any share over

the properties of Larulal Tiwari and respondent no.10 has also not perfected

their title over 4.19 acres and it has also been held that the appellants in

said title appeal are entitled 1/2 share over properties of an area measuring

118.09 acres and the plaintiff is entitled 1/4th share over it and rest are for

the next heirs i.e. wife of Bharosh Ojha being respondent no.2 in the said

title appeal. In this way, appeal was allowed with the said distribution of the

share amongst the parties.

9. Aggrieved with the judgment of the learned appellate court,

defendant 3rd party has filed Second Appeal No.04 of 2005 and intervenor

defendant 1st party has filed Second Appeal No.33 of 2005.

10. Second Appeal No.04 of 2005 was admitted vide order dated

15.09.2006 on following substantial questions of law:

"(1) Whether the appellate Court below while reversing the

finding of the trial Court, has correctly appreciated the

admissibility of Ext.B which is the main document upon

which the appellants rely?

(2) Whether the appellate Court below while reversing the

judgment of the trial Court has correctly met the

reasonings supported by correct proposition of law?"

11. Second Appeal No.33 of 2005 was admitted vide order dated

15.09.2006 on the following substantial questions of law:

"(1) Whether the appellate Court below while reversing the

finding of the trial Court, has correctly appreciated the

admissibility of Ext.B which is the main document upon

which the appellants rely?

(2) Whether the appellate Court below while reversing the

judgment of the trial Court has correctly met the

reasonings supported by correct proposition of law?"

12. Mr. Sahay, learned counsel for the appellant in Second Appeal No.33

of 2005 addressed the law points simultaneously as both the law points are

interlinked. He submits that the judgment of learned appellate court is

vitiated for negativing the claim of the intervenor defendant 1 st set, on 4.19

acres of land despite the fact that the plaintiff and defendant no.1 do not

deny his claim rather defendant no.3 supports it. He further submits that

the judgment and decree of the learned appellate court is vitiated due to

non-consideration of such vital evidence that in the Land Ceiling Case

No.46/445 of 1973-74, all the heirs of Laru Lal Tiwary had filed objection

supporting the claim of the appellant over 4.19 acres of land on the basis of

family settlement of Laru Lal Tiwary. He also submits that the learned

appellate court has not taken care of the proceedings of land ceiling case

and has reversed the finding considering that Ext.-B is not genuine

document which is erroneous as Ext.-B was the family settlement. He

further submits that even by way of adverse possession, the appellant is

entitled for the suit property. He also submits that even law of estoppel

come into play when the possession in favour of the appellant was not

disputed at the earliest by the respondents. To buttress this argument, he

relied upon the judgment passed in Kale & others v. Deputy Director of

Consolidation & others; [1976 AIR 807 (SC)] . On these grounds, he

submits that the law points framed by this Court may kindly be answered in

favour of the appellant.

13. Mr. Shankar, learned counsel for the appellants in Second Appeal

No.04 of 2005 addressed the Court on the law points framed by this Court

simultaneously and submits that the judgment of the learned appellate

court is not in accordance with law as the learned appellate court has failed

to discuss the evidences both oral and documentary of the parties by

reversing the judgment passed by the learned trial court. He submits that

the learned trial court came to conclusion that defendant 3 rd party-appellant

has possessed the land since life time of Laru Lal Tiwary and more

particularly after the family arrangement made by Laru Lal Tiwary vide

family settlement through Ext.B made in the year 1945 admitted by the

plaintiffs and defendant 1st party. Rest of the arguments advanced by Mr.

Sahay has been adopted by the learned counsel for the appellants in

Second Appeal No.04 of 2005.

14. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the suit

was decreed in part in favour of the plaintiff and the said decree was

challenged in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge and the same was

reversed by a a cogent reasoning and he is not aggrieved with that finding

of the learned appellate court. He submits that in this background, law

points framed by this Court may kindly be answered in favour of respondent

no.1.

15. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the

learned appellate court has interpreted Ext.B, which is family arrangement

in its right perspective and he has elaborately discussed the materials in

paragraphs 17 and 18 of the judgment and has come to the conclusion that

Ext.B is a forged document and that is why, he has been pleased to reverse

the finding of the learned trial court. He submits that in view of correct

appreciation of Ext.B, the law points framed by this Court may kindly be

answered in favour of respondent no.2.

16. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties, law points are interlinked and that is why all are considered by this

Court simultaneously. It is an admitted fact that the suit was instituted by

respondent no.1 being Title Suit No.36/1980. The said suit was decreed as

has been discussed herein above. Aggrieved with that, Title Appeal No. 7 of

1992/12 of 2004 was filed, whereby, the learned 3 rd Additional District and

Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Jamtara has reversed the finding of the learned trial

court.

17. The learned trial court while considering family arrangement deed at

Ext.B came to the finding that five plots of Dhanjori and Lakhanpur have

been allotted in the name of Sumitra Devi out of them four plots are

situated in village Dhanjori and those plot nos. are 409, 221, 224 and 110

and only one plot no.363 is situated in village Lakhanpur, but he found that

plot nos. 224 and 110 do not mentioned in the schedule of the plaint.

Moreover among the schedule given in schedule of Ext.B, the learned trial

court found that by virtue of document, the land has been claimed in

fraction in according to schedule of the plot no.238 and Bari has been

recorded as 38 decimals in total and discussing further, the learned trial

court has held that plots in fraction have been claimed by defendant

no.3 but no boundaries or specification has been given in the schedule of

Ext.B. He further found that there is no evidence whether oral or

documentary that defendant no.3 has been in possession of such plots

in fraction with some specific boundaries and in absence of such evidence, it

can be concluded that no specific plots were allotted to any of the

parties and the family arrangements paper was prepared simply for future

reference and it was simply a notional partition. Further with regard to

second point of partition, the learned trial court has held that evidences

available on record suggest that Kapur Bala and Dharnidhar Ojha are in

possession of the land in according to their convenience for which

no separate claim be made by any of the parties. However, if the contents

of Ext.B is accepted in toto, in that circumstances the claim and right of

plaintiff is infringed inasmuch as Sumitra Devi did not retain according to

the fair and acquirable distribution of lands, therefore, specific plots claimed

by defendant no.3 cannot be accepted and in that circumstances, the

learned court held that entire suit land excluding the houses are liable to be

partitioned in which the plaintiff would get 1/4 th share and in this

background, the learned trial court has distributed the share as has been

indicated herein above.

18. The learned appellate court has formulated law points to decide the

appeal in paragraph 13 of the judgment. While considering Ext.B, the

learned appellate court has elaborately considered the statement of

Sindhubala in paragraph 17 of the judgment and, thereafter, has been

pleased to appreciate the recitals and found that Dharnidhar Ojha has been

allotted some lands by Laru Lal Tiwari after the death of Sindhubala, who

died in the year 1944 and the contention made in the written statement of

respondent that Larulal Tiwari has made an arrangement in the year 1935,

falsified from Ext.B. The findings of the learned appellate court and the

learned trial court on the point of Ext.B are the same. Thus, on the point of

Ext.B, there is concurrent finding of both the courts. The learned appellate

court has also found that Ext.B is not signed by all the parties and the

document of family arrangement is not a registered document and in

absence of signature of all the parties, the learned appellate court has come

to the conclusion that Ext.B is not a genuine document.

19. Further adverse possession cannot be claimed by way of two

contentions. The appellants are claiming land on the ground of Ext.B and

adverse possession also, which is contradictory with each other, as has been

held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh (Dead) through LRS

v. Ram Singh (dead) through LRS; [(2000) 3 SCC 708].

20. In the judgment relied by Mr. Sahay, learned counsel for the appellant

on the point of estoppel, the dispute was not with regard to the document

which was family arrangement and it has been considered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. In the case in hand, the dispute is there with regard to

Ext.B and both the courts have given concurrent finding on that document.

Thus, the point raised by Mr. Sahay with regard to estoppel is not helping

the appellant.

21. In view of the above, the law points formulated by this Court are

answered accordingly.

22. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.

23. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.

24. Let the L.C.R. be sent back to the concerned court forthwith.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/