2020 (6) TMI 461

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... decree signed on 27.05.1993 passed by learned Sub-Judge- III, Hazaribag in Partition Suit No.22 of 1989 / 39 of 1989. The appellants being the defendants/respondents have preferred this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Ayush Aditya, has submitted that as a matter of fact the Chhotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association, Ranchi owned and possessed a piece of land measuring 11 decimals in plot no.2566 together with a tiled house in Khata No.113 of Village- Chitarpur, P.S.-Ramgarh, District- Hazaribag (now Ramgarh). The said property was put in auction. The plaintiff, Nanku Nath Choudhary became the highest bidder. The entire property was auctioned at Rs. 58,000/-. The earnest money of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited by the plaintiff, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....respectively, but gave a contrary finding in paragraph-14 as well as paragraph-16 of the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved, the defendants / respondents / appellants have preferred this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned appellate Court has considered that Exhibit-A shows that half portion of the suit land was purchased by defendant nos.2 &3, whereas Exhibit-A/1 shows that the same Plot bearing No.2566 western portion was purchased jointly in the name of plaintiff and the defendant no.1. From perusal of the agreement between the Mission and plaintiff, it is clear that half payment was made for the possession of suit land and the same was delivered to the plaintiff and rest half amount was payable at ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndents and after the hearing the parties judgment of appellate Court be set aside. This second appeal is admitted on the following 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. Let notice be issued to all the respondents namely....