Smt. Manwati Devi vs Dhurandhar Sah

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J

Learned counsel for the appellants is present.

This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 18.12.2018 (decree signed on 05.01.2019) passed by the learned District Judge-III, Godda allowing the Title Appeal No. 11 of 2010 and setting aside the judgment dated 30.04.2010 (decree signed on 14.05.2010) passed by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Godda in Title Suit No. 318 of 1997.

The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the present appeal is confined only with respect to Schedule-A property which the plaintiff No. 1 (wife of Amir Sah) claimed that it was self-acquired property of Amir Sah. The learned counsel has further submitted that so far as Schedule-B property is concerned, the same was claimed to be the self-acquired property of the plaintiff no.1. He submits that the defendants had also claimed that there was a partition by virtue of partition deed dated 13.04.1992. He has referred to internal page 16 of the trial court’s judgment and has submitted that the learned trial court held that the partition deed dated 13.04.1992 was void, illegal, forged, fabricated and inoperative and it was also declared that defendant 1st party and defendant 2nd party had no right, title and interest over the suit land and further that the Schedule-B property was only the property of plaintiff no. 1.

The learned counsel has submitted that so far as the finding of the learned trial court with regard to partition deed dated 13.04.1992 and also with regard to Schedule-B property is concerned, the same has been sustained by the learned 1st appellate court.

The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that so far as the Schedule-A property is concerned, the learned 1st appellate court has partly set-aside the judgment passed by the learned trial court by holding that the land of Schedule-A property of the plaint is joint family property of all three sons of Buddhu Sah, namely, Amir Sah, Jamahir Sah and Kameshwar Sah and being legal heir of Amir Sah, the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over Schedule-A land to the extent of share of Amir Sah only. The learned counsel has submitted that Aamir Sah was a government employee and he was posted as a forester in Forest Department and schedule-A property was his self-acquired property. He submits that this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the learned 1st appellate court and accordingly a substantial question of law arises for consideration.

Upon a query of this Court, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is no supporting registered deed in connection with purchase of Schedule-A property, but the same was acquired by way of compromise in Title Suit No. 18/1963 and also in Title Suit No. 63/1962 and Title Suit No. 100/1962. He submits that reference has been made to these aspects of the matter in paragraph 15 to 17 of the 1st appellate court’s judgment. There is another reference of Title Suit No. 100 of 1962 which was filed by Hira Sah and others against Amir Sah.

The learned counsel for the appellants also submits that in the impugned judgment, it has been recorded that it was claimed that Amir Sah had acquired Schedule-A property from his own income and earnings as he was forester in forest department, but none of the documentary evidence has been adduced by the plaintiffs during trial of the suit, from which it could be presumed that the Amir Sah had acquired the land of Schedule-A of the plaint through registered sale deed in his name from his own income. The learned 1st appellate court has further recorded that on the other hand, the defendants had succeeded to discharge their onus that most of the suit property of Schedule-A was acquired by Buddhu Sah father of Amir Sah, Jamahir Sah and Kameshwar Sah vide deed of Kurfanama vide exhibit-A and A/1 which has been earlier given to him by father-in-law of Budhu Sah, namely, Bhajju Sao at the time of his marriage and later on a Kurfanama document was executed by him for future reference and on the basis of that Kurfanama deed, most of the land of Schedule-A of the plaint came in possession of Amir Sah after death of his father as he was eldest amongst his brothers.

The learned counsel has submitted that the learned 1st appellate court has not properly appreciated the materials on record and therefore the provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC has not been satisfied.

The learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) 13 SCC 530 (B.V. Nagesh & Anr. Vs. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy) and (2022) 3 SCC 90 (Manjula and Others vs. Shyamsundar & Others).

However, during the course of argument, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that no title deed regarding purchase of land by Amir Sah has been exhibited before the learned court by the plaintiffs and Amir Sah never purchased the property by virtue of any registered deed in his name.

Findings of this Court

It is not in dispute that the plaintiff no. 1 is widow of Amir Sah, plaintiff nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the daughters of Amir Sah and Amir Sah was the son of Budhu Sah. It is also not in dispute that Budhu Sah died leaving behind his 3 sons, namely, Amir Sah, Jamahir Sah and Kameshwar Sah; the sons and daughters of Kameshwar were defendant 1st party and JaMahir Sah was proforma defendant 2nd party.

Case of the plaintiffs.

It was the case of the plaintiffs that Amir Sah and his brothers inherited and possessed meager agricultural land in Jamabandi no. 73 of village Parsa from their father Budhu Sah, but in the year 1952, Jamahir Sah separated from his brothers after taking away his share in the ancestral property. It was further case of the plaintiffs that original defendant no. 1 Kameshwar Sah was also separated from his brother Amir Sah in the year 1955 and since then he is also residing separately. Thus all the three brothers separated themselves by metes and bounds from each other in mess and property and took their respective shares.

It was the case of the plaintiffs that after partition, Amir Sah was appointed as Forester in Forest Department and retired from his service in the year 1990 and acquired some land exclusively from his earning, which was Schedule-A land. It was further case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff no.1 had also acquired certain property from her stridhan vide registered sale deed no. 270 dated 19.02.1963 and renovated the house over such property which was also mutated in her name. The property purchased by the plaintiff no. 1 from her stridhan was shown in Schedule-B of the plaint.

It was also case of the plaintiffs that Amir Sah acquired the scheduled lands and constructed houses thereon exclusively from his own skill, labour, incomes and earnings and by virtue of deed passed in different title suits from the court of competent jurisdiction and his name was also mutated and the rent receipts were being regularly paid by him and none of his brothers had any concern with such property. It was the case of the plaintiffs that Amir Sah had also acquired plot no. 161 appertaining to J.B. No. 33 of village Routara from the decree passed in Title Suit No. 15/1963 by the court of competent Jurisdiction, which was upheld in Title Appeal no. 09/1965 and also by virtue of order passed in his favour in Revisional Miscellaneous Appeal No. 48/1973-74 and pucca building was constructed by him over the same. Similarly, Amir Sah also acquired 3 katha 15 dhurs land in plot no. 394 appertaining to J.B. No. 14 in village Parsa and the same was also mutated in his name and pucca house was also constructed thereon.

It was the further case of the plaintiffs that Amir Sah bequeathed his all self-acquired properties to his three daughters, who are the legal heirs and successors of Amir Sah, through registered deed of Will No. 204 dated 25.02.1992 and thus the entire property of Schedule-A devolved upon his three daughters. Amir Sah died on 15.04.1992 out of heart attack.

The cause of action for the suit arose when the plaintiffs heard rumour in the village in the middle of month of August 1993 that the defendant 1st party has fabricated some forged documents relating to the suit properties. Upon search, they came to know that defendant 1st party had fraudulently created forged deed of partition relating to the suit property purporting to be executed by Amir Sah by setting up an imposter in place of Amir Sah vide registered Partition Deed No. 671 dated 13.04.1992, which as per the plaintiffs never executed by Amir Sah because Amir Sah was lying critical and almost in comma on 13.04.1992 under the constant observation of local doctor and he was physically and mentally incapable to execute the same on 13.04.1992. It was also asserted that the identifiers of the partition deed, namely, Jaikant Sah and Jageshwar Sah have also sworn an affidavit no. 2685 dated 27.07.1993 and 3447 dated 08.09.1993 before the Notary Public that the said deed of partition has been created by the defendant 1st party by setting up and imposter of said Amir Sah. It was also asserted that the deed of partition No. 611 dated 13.04.1992 is void-ab-initio, illegal, forged and fraudulent document and has not conferred any right upon defendant 1st party and therefore, the plaintiffs have got valid right, title and interest in the suit property.

The  plaintiffs  sought  confirmation  of  their  right  over  the  suit property and also a decree restraining the defendant 1st party from interfering with the right, title and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land by issuing permanent and temporary injunction.

Case of the defendants

So far as defendant no. 2 Jamahir Sah is concerned, he filed his written statement and supported the pleadings of the plaintiffs and asserted that the defendant no. 1 was desirous of occupying the property of the plaintiffs. Thus, he supported the plaintiffs.

The defendant 1st party filed a written statement opposing the prayer stating that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the necessary party as the sons of defendant nos. 1 and 2 were not made party in the suit. It was asserted that defendant no. 2 had separated from the joint family, but only in mess, residence and business and it was also true that defendant no. 2 always lived jointly with Amir Sah for all purposes till they partitioned their property by the registered deed no. 611 dated 13.04.1992. It was further asserted that it was totally false to say that there was any partition in the year 1955 and all the three brothers had separated themselves by taking share only in Jamabandi No. 73 of village Parsa.

It was their further case that the property covered by Schedule-A was acquired by Bandhu Sah, father of defendant no. 1 and 2 and father-in-law of plaintiff no. 1. The certified copies of Title Suit No. 63/1962 and Title Suit No. 100/1962 and the Kurfa and other documents indicated that the property of Schedule-A was the property of Bandhu Sah, and the said fact were admitted by Amir Sah also in the court.

It was asserted that the property covered by Schedule-B was also part of joint family property. With respect to Schedule-B property, it was stated that Amir Sah was the elder brother and was the karta of the family, so he frequently got the sale deed registered in the name of his wife. However, he ultimately corrected his wrong deeds at the end by executing registered deed of partition No. 611 dated 13.04.1992. It was denied that Schedule-B property was purchased from the stridhan of the plaintiff no.1. It was asserted that no property was purchased by Amir Sah out of his own income and earnings. The recitals made in the compromise petition of the suit is the false version of the plaintiffs. It was asserted that Amir Sah had admitted in the compromise petition of Title Suit No. 63/1962 and Title Suit No. 100 of 1962 that the land of Schedule-A was given by Bhajju Sah to his son-in-law Bandhu Sah and his brother Buddhan Sah and they were in possession of the said land till their death. It was also asserted that the aforesaid documents were also filed in R.M.A. No. 14/1984-85 also. It was further pleaded that the land of plot no. 161 of Jamabandi No. 33 of village Routara was acquired by Budhu Sah through Kurfa. The compromise filed in Title Suit No. 15/1963 and ground of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 14/1985-86 also proved that the land was acquired by Budhu Sah and all the constructions on plot no. 161 of village Routara was also made from joint family fund and Amir Sah was never in exclusive possession of the property. It was also pleaded that they had all right, title and possession over the suit land.

With respect to registered partition deed, it was asserted that Amir Sah was heart patient but his condition was not critical from 06.03.1992 to 15.03.1992 and he came for partition on 13.04.1992 and the plaintiffs had full knowledge of the partition deed.

The defendant 1st party prayed for dismissal of the suit.

On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the learned trial court has framed the following issues for consideration: -

Is the suit as framed maintainable?

Have the plaintiffs got any cause of action for the suit?

Have the plaintiffs got any right, title and possession over the suit land?

Is the registered deed of partition bearing no. 611 dated 13.04.1992 void, illegal, forged, fabricated and inoperative?

Have the defendant 1st party got any right, title interest over the suit land by virtue of registered deed of partition no. 611 dated 13.04.1992?

To what relief or relies, if any are the plaintiffs entitled?

Both the parties led oral and documentary evidences. The Exhibit-1 was the certified copy of deed of partition no. 611 dated 13.04.1992 and Exhibit-1/a was the unregistered deed of Batwaranama dated 10.02.1987 prepared between Raghu Sah and Amir Sah. Apart from other exhibits, exhibit-4 was the registered deed no. 270 dated 29.01.1963 executed by Bashisth Narayan Dubey in favour of Manwati Devi, W/o Amir Sah. Exhibit-5 and 5/a were the documents relating to mutation.

The defendants exhibited 2 Kurfanama i.e. exhibit A to A/1. Exhibit-B was the affidavit of Jaikant Sah. Exhibit-C was the certified copy of compromise petition filed in Title Suit No. 100/1962; Exhibit-C/1 was the certified copy of the compromise petition filed in Title Suit No. 63/1962; Exhibit-D was the certified copy of plaint of Title Suit No. 63/1962; Exhibit-E was the certified copy of the order sheet dated 12.07.1962 and 19.07.1962 in Title Suit No. 100/1962 and Exhibit-E/1 was the certified copy of order sheet dated 26.05.1962 in Title Suit No. 63/1962.

The issue nos. 3, 4 and 5 were taken up together by the learned trial court and after considering the materials on record, all the three issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant 1st party. It was held that-

the partition deed dated 13.04.1992 is void, illegal, forged, fabricated and inoperative;

the defendant 1st party and defendant 2nd party had no right, title and interest over the suit land.

With respect to Schedule-B land, it was held that the plaintiff no. 1 Manwati had exclusive right, title and interest over the same being her self-acquired property.

The defendant 1st party filed appeal. The learned 1st appellate court framed the following points for determination: -

“(I) Whether the suit property mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint is self acquired property of husband of plaintiff no. 1 as well as father of plaintiff no. 2 to 4 namely Amir Sah or the same is joint family property or ancestral properties of both parties of this appeal.

(II) Whether the suit property mentioned in Schedule-B of the pliant is self-acquired streedhan property of plaintiff no. 1 Manwati Devi or the same was acquired by Amir Sah in the name of his wife Manwati Devi from the joint family fund?

(III) Whether registered deed of partition bearing no. 611 dated 13.04.1992 alleged to have been executed by Amir Sah is legal or valid document and thereby the original defendant no. 1 Kameshwar Sah or his legal heirs got valid right, title and interest over the property mentioned in that deed of partition or the same has been illegally been prepared by the defendants by adopting fraudulent measures?

The point for determination nos. II and III were decided in favour of the plaintiffs by the learned 1st appellate court and accordingly the plaintiffs are not aggrieved with regard to the finding in connection with point of determination nos. II and III.

Arguments have been advanced only in connection with point of determination no. I. However, the learned 1st appellate court had taken up point of determination nos. I and II together.

The learned 1st appellate court recorded that the crux of the appeal was to decide as to whether the suit property of Schedule-A was acquired by Budhu Sah during his lifetime or the same was acquired by Amir Sah from his own earning or the same was acquired by Amir Sah from the joint family fund. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that to prove the aforesaid facts, both the parties have led their oral and documentary evidences in support of their pleadings. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that the original plaintiff no. 1 namely Manwati was examined as PW-1 and she had supported her case that her husband was posted in Forest Department and he acquired the property from his own earnings. During cross-examination, she deposed that the land was acquired by her husband through registered deed and he was separated from his brothers since last 50 years and Panchayati papers were also prepared for the same.

This Court finds that admittedly, no register deed with respect to purchase of property in the name of Amir Sah as claimed by PW-1 during cross-examination was produced before the court. Even during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there was no registered deed of purchase of the schedule A property in the name of Amir Sah, rather, there is no registered sale deed in connection with acquisition of schedule A property.

The learned 1st appellate court further recorded that the son of original defendant, namely, Dhurandar Sah was examined as DW-11 who stated that the suit land of village Routara and Parsa were acquired by his grandfather Budhu Sah and the land of Schedule-B was purchased by his father and his uncle Amir Sah as one of his uncle Jamahir Sah has already been separated from his remaining two brothers and his property has not been included in the suit. He also deposed that the land of Godda has been purchased after separation of Jamahir Sah from his remaining brothers. He further deposed that Amir Sah was the karta of the family as he was eldest amongst his brothers and his father was less educated and hence the entire family activities were being managed by Amir Sah.

Thereafter, the learned 1st appellate court went on to examine the documentary evidences of the plaintiffs. The learned 1st appellate court examined Exhibit-1/a, which was produced nonetheless by the plaintiffs, which was an unregistered deed of partition prepared between Raghu Sah, S/o Munsi Sah of village Parsa and Amir Sah s/o Budhu Sah on 10.02.1987, wherein it was recorded that the property of plot no. 161 situated at mouza Raoutara was acquired through Kurfa and joint jamabandi is still running and descendants of raiyats of both parties had already filed Title Suit No. 18/1963 before the Second Officer and the same was decided on the basis of compromise and hence entire land is in joint possession of both sides and thus as per this partition, 9 katha land of plot no. 161 was allotted in favour of Amir Sah and remaining 9 katha land allotted into the share of aforesaid Raghu Sah.

Thereafter, the learned 1st appellate court considered Exhibit-A and A/1 which were unregistered Kurfanama and were marked upon admission of both the parties. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that the kurfanama (Exhibit-A) was executed by one Hira Sah S/o Bajju sah in which it has been mentioned that he had nearest relation with Budhu Sah son of Munsi Sah of village parsa as such on 15th March of 1936 Fasli giving the details as to how the property came in possession of Budhu Sah who was the ancestor of both the sides of the suit.

The learned 1st appellate court also considered Kurfanama Exhibit-A/1 and recorded that the lands were acquired by the ancestors through Kurfanama and a Title Suit No. 18/1963 was filed for the same. The learned 1st appellate court also considered the certified copy of Title Suit No. 63/1962 between Hira Sah and Amir Sah, which was marked Exhibit-D in which it was mentioned that the land of Schedule-A (plot no. 285 area 2 katha 2 dhur of mouza Parsa) was recorded in the last settlement in the name of Bhajju Sah which supports the recital of Exhibit-A. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that Bhajju Sah died leaving behind his son Hira Sah and Nathu Sah, out of whom Nathu Sah died issueless and the said Hira Sah was the executor of Kurfanama deed of Exhibit-A and the property was given by Bhajju Sah to the father of the defendants namely Budhu Sah.

The learned 1st appellate court also went through the compromise petition exhibit-C/1 wherein it was mentioned that the land covered by Schedule-A was given to the father of the defendant for cultivation in the year 1345 Fasli and thus recorded that the defendants had acquired a right of occupancy over the same and the same will continue to remain in his possession.

The learned 1st appellate court also considered Exhibit-C, which is the joint compromise petition filed in Title Suit No. 100/1962, wherein it was mentioned that Bhajju Sah was the father-in-law of Buddhu Sah and the aforesaid Bhajju Sah at the time of daughter’s marriage with Buddhu Sah given the suit land bearing plot no. 381.

The learned 1st appellate court ultimately after going through the exhibit-1/a, Exhibit-C, C/1 and Exhibit-D as well as the testimony of DW-11 and para 15 of the written statement of defendant 1st party recorded that the suit land of Schedule-A bearing Plot No. 489 area 6 katha 9 dhur, plot no. 381 area 9 katha 14 dhur, plot no. 285 area 2 katha 2 dhur have been acquired by the father of Amir Sah, namely, Budhu Sah by deed of Kurfanama and later on title of Amir Sah over the same was declared in Title Suit No. 63/1962 and Title Suit No. 100/1962 on the basis of compromise.

The learned 1st appellate court recorded that it was the specific pleading of the plaintiffs that the aforesaid properties along with the remaining land of Schedule-A of the plaint was acquired by Amir Sah through his own income and earnings as he was the Forester in the Forest Department, but none of the documentary evidence has been adduced by the plaintiffs during the trial of the suit from which it could be presumed that the aforesaid Amir Sah had acquired the land of Schedule-A of the pliant through registered sale deed in his name from his own income.

The findings of the learned 1st appellate court is quoted as under: -

“19. ……………………………………………………………………Having gone through Ext.-1/a, Ext.-C, C/1 and Ext.-D as well as the testimony of DW-11 and para-15 of the written statement of defendant 1 party, I find that the suit land of Schedule-A bearing Plot no. 489 area 6 kattha 9 dhur, Plot no. 381 area 9 kattha 14 dhur, Plot no. 285 area 2 kattha 2 dhur have been acquired by father of Arair Sah namely Budhu Sao by deed of Kurfanama and later on title of Amir Sah over the same was declared in Title Suit No. 63/62 & 100/62 on the basis of compromise. It is pleading of the plaintiffs that the aforesaid lands along with remaining land of Schedule-A of the plaint was acquired by aforesaid Amir Sah through his own income and earning as he was Forester in Forest Department, but none of the documentary evidence has been adduced by the plaintiffs during the trial of the suit, from which it could be presumed that the aforesaid Amir Sah had acquired the land of Schedule-A of the plaint through registered sale deed in his name from his own income. On the other hand the defendants have succeeded to discharge their onus that most of the suit property of Schedule-A was acquired by Budhu Sah (father of Amir Sah Jamahir Sah and Kameshwar Sah) by deed of Kurfanama (Ext A & A/1), which had been earlier given to him by father-in-law of Budhu Sao namely Bhajju Sao at the time of his marriage and later on a Kurfanama document was executed by him for future reference and on the basis of that Kurfanama deed most of the land of Schedule A of the plaint came in possession of aforesaid Amir Sah after death of his father as he was eldest amongst his brothers. During the course of argument it was also argued by the learned counsel of respondents that one of brother of Amir Sah namely Jamahir Sah, who is defendant 2nd party of the suit, has supported the pleading of the plaintiffs in his written statement, which finds supports the pleading of the plaintiffs as well as testimony of the plaintiff witnesses that the suit land of Schedule-A property was exclusive property of Amir Sah and suit land of Schedule-B is Streedhan property of plaintiff no. 1 Manwati Devi, but I want to mention here that the aforesaid Jamahir Sah has not come to depose his evidence in support of his pleading and it is settled principle of law that pleading is not substantive piece of evidence as held by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the reported case of SANTI PRIYA PAL Versus MIRA BISWAS (1985 (2) CLJ 107], in which it has been held that "the Pleading is not evidence and the case made out in the pleading is required to be proved by evidence. It is, therefore, essential for a party to prove its case by leading proper evidence" and thus the oral testimony of plaintiff witnesses cannot be considered as exclusive proof in the light of pleading of defendant 2 party, specially where case of the plaintiffs have become falsified from their exhibited documents specially Ext.-1/a. Hence this court has no hesitation in holding that the learned court below has not rightly appreciated the documentary evidence of plaintiffs and defendants to decide the main crux of the suit. The learned counsel of appellants has placed reliance on the findings given by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi in the reported case of Lakhan Lal Poddar Vs. Bhagarthi Bhagat [2007 (3) JLJR Page 432], in which it has been held that "it is well settled that a finding of fact must be based on consideration of all the relevant document both oral and documentary" and in the case in hand the learned court below has not considered the documentary evidence led by the parties in right prospective and thus, the findings given by the learned court below in his impugned judgment that the defendant 1 party and 2nd party have no right, title and interest over the suit land of schedule A of the plaint is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same requires interference by this appellate court and thus, it is held that the lands mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint was acquired by Buddhu Sah and after his death, the same was devolved upon his legal heirs i.e. his three sons namely Amir Sah, Jamahir Sah and Kameshwar Sah and being legal heirs of aforesaid Kameshwar Sah, the appellants have also right title and interest over the suit land of schedule A to the extent of share of aforesaid Kameshwar Sah.”

This Court finds that the specific case of the plaintiffs was that Amir Sah had purchased/acquired the property mentioned in Schedule-A from his own income, but no document of title was produced showing that Amir Sah had purchased/acquired the property from his own income. No registered deed was produced showing purchase/acquisition of property by Amir Sah from his own income. The documents on record revealed that the schedule-A property was acquired by father of Amir Sah.

This Court is of the considered view that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their specific case as pleaded in the plaint with regard to purchase of Schedule-A property by Amir Sah much less purchase by Amir Sah from his own income and ultimately, the learned 1st appellate court held that Schedule-A property of the plaint is joint family property of three sons of Budhu Sah, namely, Amir Sah, Jamahir Sah and Kameshwar Sah and being legal heirs of Amir Sah, the plaintiffs have right, title and interest only to the extent of share of Amir Sah and the finding of the learned trial court was set-aside in this connection.

Upon perusal of the judgement passed by the learned trial court, this court finds that the material documentary evidences produced by the contesting defendant 1st party and its contents and implications were not considered while recording findings in connection with Schedule-A property particularly Exhibit-A, A/1, C, C/1 and Exhibit-D. The learned 1st appellate court has considered the materials on record, both oral and documentary and passed a well-reasoned judgement while holding that the property in schedule A was not the self-acquired property of the Amir Sah and that it was joint family property.

Having gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court, this Court finds that the impugned judgment is a well-reasoned judgment and no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal, which is hereby dismissed.

Pending I.A., if any, closed.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’.