9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng substantial question of law: (i) Whether the Exhibit-10 and Exhibit-A A/1 have been rightly considered by the learned appellate court? (ii) Whether the property is hit by the provision of Benami Transaction (Prohibitory) Act, 1988? (iii) Whether without any material showing the jointness of the parties, the appellate court can declare that defendant nos. 2 3, who are sons of defendant no.1, are not the real owner of the suit land, which was transferred to them by way of registered sale deed dated 28.07.1985 (Exhibit-A). Call for Lower Court Records. - S. A. No. 278 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 11-6-2020 - Mr. Justice Kailash Prasad Deo For the Appellants : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate ORDER The second appeal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uted with respect to 5 decimals of land in favour of plaintiff, Nanku Nath Choudhary and defendant, Jagmohan Sonar as the defendants were second highest bidder in the auction purchase proceeding. Some of the lands were encroached by the encroachers and some of the lands have gone into the widening of road, as such, the plaintiff has prayed before the trial court to partition the property into half -half share irrespective of the sale deeds, as the property has been purchased under the provisions of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The trial court has framed altogether six issues. Issue no.(c) i.e. Is the suit hit by the provisions of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988? and Issue No. (e) i.e. Is there any unity of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h is substantial question of law. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that while deciding the Issue No. (e) with regard to the unity of title and unity of possession between the parties again the learned appellate Court has committed an error in considering the jointness of the property, though there are two sale deeds one in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 and other in the name of the defendant nos.2 3. Even if the signature of defendant no.1 is there on the agreement between the Mission and the plaintiff, the same is not binding upon the defendant nos. 2 3, rather the appellate Court has failed to consider and contrary to the sale deeds and the averments made therein, which has been brought on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onar, resident of P.S. P.O. - Dhanu Pali, District Sambalpur (Orissa); (iv) Nala Devi , wife of Anand Sonar, daughter of Late Jagmohan Sonar, resident of Village, P.O. P.S. - Katras, District Dhanbad; (v) Champa Devi , wife of Karun Prasad, daughter of Late Jagmohan Sonar, resident of Village, P.O. P.S. - Mangta Banda, District Dumka (vi) Pratima Devi , wife of Ashok Prasad, daughter of Late Jagmohan Sonar, resident of Church Road, P.O. P.S. - Ranchi, District Ranchi, under both process i.e. under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process, for which requisites etc. must be filed within four weeks after the lock down period is over. The Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court is directed to look into the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
