2025: JHHC: 22349 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 131 of 2018 Jitendra Jha, aged about 70 years, son of Late Shankar Jha, resident of village Chakarma, P.O. Mohanpur, P.S. Mohanpur, District Deoghar … … Plaintiff/Appellant/appellant Versus 1. Suresh Choudhary, son of Late Rameshwar Choudhary 2. Dinesh Choudhary, son of Late Rameshwar Choudhary 3. Bindhya Devi, D/o Late Rameshwar Choudhary 4. Sachchidanand Jha, son of Late Chhatradhari Jha, 5. Niranjan Jha, son of Late Chhatradhari Jha 6. Jay Prakash Jha, son of Late Nirmala Devi 7. Sriprakash Jha, Son of Late Nirmala Devi 8. Om Prakash Jha, son of Late Nirmala Devi 9. Kalyani Devi, D/o Late Nirmala Devi 10. Rajnandan Jha @ Rajendra Jha, son of Late Shankar Jha 11. Punam Devi, Widow of Mahendra Jha 12. Manish Jha, son of Late Mahendra Jha 13. Dilip Kumar Jha, son of Late Mahendra Jha 14. Nitu Devi, D/o Late Mahendra Jha 15. Geeta Devi, D/o Late Mahendra Jha All are resident of village Chakarma, P.O. & P.S. Mohanpur, District Deoghar … … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. R. N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate --- 37/31st July 2025 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 25.01.2018 (decree signed on 08.02.2018) passed by the learned District Judge-I, Deoghar in Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2009 affirming the judgment and decree dated 12.11.2009 and 26.11.2009 respectively passed by the 2025: JHHC: 22349 2 learned Sub-ordinate Judge IV, Deoghar in Title Partition Suit No. 274 of 1997, whereby the suit was dismissed. 2. The appeal has been filed by the sole plaintiff; respondent no. 10 to 15 are defendant 1st party in the suit; Respondent no. 1 to 3 are defendant 2nd party in the suit and respondent no.4 to 9 are defendant 3rd party in the suit. 3. The suit was filed for a decree of partition to the extent of 1/4th share in Schedule-A, A/I and A/II property. The plaintiff also prayed for preliminary decree in favour of plaintiff and further prayed that an Amin Commissioner be deputed to carve out a separate Patti for the plaintiff out of the suit property to the extent of 1/4th share and to prepare a final decree in terms thereof. The suit was dismissed and the appeal was also dismissed and accordingly the plaintiff is the appellant before this court. 4. The issues framed before the learned trial court as decided vide judgement dated 12.11.2009 are as under: 1) Is the suit, as framed, maintainable? 2) Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit? 3) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? 4) Whether Chhathu Jha had only two daughters namely Jamuna Devi and Harkha Devi or he had one another daughter also namely Jagta Devi? 5) Whether the plaintiff and defendant first party have been coming in possession over the suit property or his part thereof after the death of Chhathu Jha? 6) Whether Shankar Jha inherited entire estate of Chhathu Jha as daughters’ son (Nati)? 7) Whether proforma defendants (i.e. defendant no. 7 to 12) have absolute right, title, interest and possession over the suit property? 2025: JHHC: 22349 3 8) Whether there is unity of title and unity of possession regarding the suit land in between the parties? 9) To what relief or reliefs is the plaintiff entitled to?” 5. The suit was dismissed vide judgement dated 12.11.2009. The plaintiff was in appeal. The learned 1st appellate court at the threshold took up issue no.4, which was the same issue as framed by the learned trial court, and recorded its finding based on both oral and documentary evidences that it was admitted that both the plaintiff, defendant 1st party, defendant 2nd party and defendant 3rd party were heirs of the daughters of late Chhathu Jha and there was no evidence that there has been partition with respect to the property and held that the property was in joint possession of the plaintiff, the defendant 1st party, defendant 2nd party and the defendant 3rd party. The relevant portion of the finding as recorded in internal page 9 of the judgement passed in Title Appeal No.47/2009 is quoted as under: - “……………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………….. From the oral testimony of the witnesses adduced, it is clear that the witnesses have disclosed that the late Chathu Jha have three daughters namely Jamuna Devi, Harkha Devi and Jagta Devi. The plaintiff in support of their contention have filed documents before the court. No doubt the documents are more reliable than the oral testimony. I have also perused the document filed by the plaintiff as well as the defendant. I have gone through the document exhibit 9 and 9/A. The recital of exhibit 9 speaks that the Shankar Jha is Nati of Chathu Jha. The ext.9/A is also disclosed that the Shankar Jha is the Nati of Chathu Jha and he is the legal heirs to inherit. The properties after the date his possession may be recorded in remarks column of Jote column 9 in respect of the plot separate Jamabandi cannot be allowed. The plaintiff have stated that the exhibit-9 and 9/A, the statement of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 have also admitted that he has filed any document which can so that Jagta Devi is not the daughter of Chatu Jha. As per the contention of defendant second and third party. D.W. 9 have deposed in the evidence that Chathu Jha had only three daughters namely Bachhi Devi died in childhood, 2025: JHHC: 22349 4 Harkha Devi died in the lift time of Chathu Jha. The second party have relied on the documentary evidence Gantzer survey report in which it has been mentioned that Nandkishore Choudhary and Rameshwar Choudhary are the grandson of Chathu Jha. D.W. 4 have also deposed in evidence before the court that the Chathu Jha has three daughters namely Bachhi Devi, Harkha Devi and Jagta Devi. The exhibit 9 and 9/A filed by the plaintiff does not negates the statement of defendant second party and third party. I have perused the exhibit-L filed by the defendant second and third party which is the copy of mistake list entry regarding serial no. 6 from B Misl of Mauja Barasati Ghat no. 805 P.S. Deoghar. From perusal of this mistake list, it is clear that the said document disclosed that the Nandkishor Jha and Rameshwar Chaudhary son of Tirathnath Chaudhary is the grandson (nati) of Chathu Jha and the same has been accepted by late Chathu Jha. This document alone prove the contention of the defendant second and third party that they are heirs of Rameshwar Chaudhdary and Nandkishore Chaudhary who was the Nati (daughter son) of late Chathu Jha. During the course of argument the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent have vehemently argued their contention. The learned counsel for the respondent have argued that exhibit 9 and 9/A filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a mistake list and same cannot be relied on. I have perused the entire document filed by the plaintiff and defendant. None of the document filed by the defendant negates the contention of the plaintiff/petitioner that Shankar Jha was not the Nati of Late Chathu Jha. The document filed by the plaintiff also does not register that defendant are not the legal heirs if the Nati of late Chathu Jha. Thus from the perusal of document filed by the both parties and the oral testimony, learned trial court have rightly hold that the plaintiff, defendant first party and defendant second and third party are the legal heirs of late Shankar Jha and Rameshwar Chaudhary, Nandkishore Choudhary respectively who are Nati (daughter son) of late Chathu Jha. I do not find any infirmity in the issue decided by the learned Sub-Judge.” 6. The learned 1st appellate court then took up issue no. 5,6 and 7, which was the same issue as framed by the learned trial court, and recorded its finding based on both oral and documentary evidence. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that both plaintiff and defendant 1st party, 2nd party and 3rd party are the heirs of the daughter of late Chathu 2025: JHHC: 22349 5 Jha; there has been no partition of the property, so it cannot be said that either plaintiff or defendant are in possession of the disputed property. The property is in joint possession. The concluding portion of the finding as recorded in internal page 15 of the judgement passed in Title Appeal No.47/2009 is quoted as under: “………………………………………………………………….……… …………………………………………………………… From perusal of the evidence adduced documentary as well as oral. It is admitted that the both plaintiff and defendant first party, second party and third party are heirs of the daughter of late Chathu Jha. There is no evidence on the record regarding any partition between the property. There is no partition of the property. The state of the Chathu Jha is still joint so it cannot be said that either plaintiff or defendant are in possession of the disputed property. The property is in joint possession. Thus, this issue is decided against the plaintiff to extent that he is in exclusive possession of the suit property rather from the evidence, it is clear that the plaintiff as well as the defendant first party and second party, 3rd party are in joint possession.” 7. The issue nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 were decided by holding that there was unity of title and over of the suit property. The learned 1st appellant court while deciding issue no. 1, 2 and 6 remanded the matter for decision on the aforesaid two additional points as under: - “I have perused the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and the defendant second party and third party. From perusal, it appears that the defendant have shown that they are in possession of certain portion of land of late Chathu Jha and the plaintiff have also shown that he is also in possession of same of the portion of land of State of Late Chathu Jha. The subordinate Judge wrongly held that the present suit filed by the petitioner is suit for declaration of the title in favour of the plaintiff and defendant first party. In fact the issues no.4, 5, 6 and 7 have been decided and it has been held in this issue that there is unity of title and possession over the suit property. No evidence has been brought by the defendant second party and third party that there is a partition between the plaintiff and defendant first party, second party and third party by metes and bound, rather it has come from the evidence that the late Chathu Jha has alienated some of 2025: JHHC: 22349 6 the property out of the family. It has also been come in the evidence and the parties have also tried to brought the evidence that some of the properties has been given to them by late Chathu Jha by executing document. It has been held that the plaintiff and defendant are the heirs of daughter of the late Chathu Jha who was not having male child so they have succeeded the sister of late Chathu Jha. It is not necessary to ask partition from each and every legal heirs. The plaintiff can ask partition for his share. So the observation made by the learned sub-judge that the suit is dismissed, since no relief has been shown from the defendant second party is not correct. In the given circumstances, the present partition suit is remanded back to the court of learned sub-judge to frame the issue that what the properties of late Chathu Jha which is required to be partitioned between the plaintiff, defendant, first party and second party and whether all the heirs of the late Chathu Jha has been made party in the present suit. The party are directed to lead evidence before the learned court if so they desired after that learned sub-judge shall give the finding on these issues and decide the suit for partition.” 8. Thus, the partition suit could not be decreed as the following two additional issues were required to be decided and the case was remanded to the trial court: - “(a) what are the properties of late Chattu Jha which is required to be partitioned between the plaintiff, defendants first party and second party. (b) whether all the heirs of late Chattu Jha have been made party in the present suit?” 9. The order of remand passed in Title Appeal No.47 of 2009 vide judgement dated 21.02.2011 was challenged by the defendant 2nd party, the contesting defendants, and the same was decided by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2017 passed in M.A. No. 508 of 2014. This Court held that on perusal of the judgement of the 1st appellate court, it was manifest that the appellate court despite arriving at a conclusive finding on the issues, had remanded the matter on the two issues as mentioned. This Court also observed that the proposition of law is well settled that when 2025: JHHC: 22349 7 material evidence is available before the 1st appellate court, it has to decide the matter on the basis of evidence available on record and should not shrink from its responsibility by remitting the matter to the court below. However, this court observed that 5 years had elapsed since the passing of the order of remand and simply directed the trial court to decide the two issues as formulated by the 1st appellate court and return a finding within 2 months to the 1st appellate court, who was to decide the 1stappeal within 4 months thereafter. The findings and observations of this court in M.A. No. 508 of 2014 are quoted as under: - “5. Having heard the counsels and on-going through the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is not disputed that the settled proposition is that the first appellate court is the final court of facts and law. No doubt, duty is cast on the first appellate court to frame points for determination for adjudication, but, it is also settled principle that when the court applies its judicial mind independently and on examination and appreciation of the evidence on record, it records its satisfaction while arriving at the findings on each issues either agreeing or disagreeing with the findings on the issues framed by the trial court, this amounts to compliance of the provision of Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C. The decision relied upon by the counsel has been rendered in second appeal whereas the instant appeal has arisen out the order of remand passed under Order XLI Rule 25 C.P.C. On perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate court, it is manifest that the first appellate court despite, arriving at a conclusive finding on the issues, has remanded the matter on the two issues as mentioned above. The proposition of law is well settled that when material evidence is available before the lower appellate court, it has to decide the matter on the basis of evidence available on record and should not shirk from its responsibility by remitting the matter to the court below which is what has been done by the appellate court in the instant case. Admittedly five years have lapsed since the passing of the impugned order and it has been informed that the parties have 2025: JHHC: 22349 8 adduced their evidence in terms of the remand order and the case is fixed for arguments of the parties. Since evidence has been adduced no prejudice has been caused to the appellant. In the attending facts and circumstances the trial court is directed to decide the two issues as formulated by the first appellate court and return the findings within two months to the appellate court which shall decide the appeal within four months thereafter. No unnecessary adjournments or time should be granted to the parties and both the parties shall co-operate in expeditious disposal of the case. The observation and direction by the lower appellate court to the trial court for deciding the suit for partition was not warranted accordingly, the trial court shall exercise its own discretion in deciding the issues in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation and direction of the first appellate court for deciding the suit for partition. 6. With the said direction, the appeal is, hereby, disposed-off. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any view on the merit of the case.” 10. Upon remand, no fresh evidence was led before the learned trial court and thus no additional material was placed to decide on the aforesaid two additional issues and thus what remained was the schedule properties to be partitioned amongst the parties who were already available on record. The learned trial court on remand also decided on the shares of the respective parties. The order on remand of the learned trial court is dated 06.04.2017. The findings are as follows: - “6. In my view all these aforesaid arguments is nothing but a futile exercise made by the parties because of the issues that, whether Jagta Devi is successor of Chhathu Jha or not, has already been decided by trial court in issue no. IV as well as by First Appellate Court. It is concurrent finding of trial court and First Appellate Court. Both the court have decided that Chhathu Jha had three daughters Jamuna Devi, Harkha Devi and Jagta Devi. So at this stage when the case is remanded back to decide aforesaid two issues only, this court has no jurisdiction to re agitate or to re- appraise the issue aforesaid. It has already been decided that Chhathu Jha had three daughters and the plaintiff and all defendants are successor of Jamuna Devi and Jagta Devi both daughters of chhathu Jha, as Harkha Devi died issue less. On the 2025: JHHC: 22349 9 point of succession or further is there any other heir of Chhathu Jha, there is no evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties after framing these two new issues aforesaid. So again and again recitation of evidence already discussed by trial court and First Appellate Court will be futile exercise. On the basis of the evidence available on judicial record I find and hold that all the heirs of late Chhathu Jha has been made party in the present suit. 7. So far the issue that what of the properties of late Chhatu Jha which is required to be partitioned between the plaintiff, defendant first party and second party, is property described in schedule of the plaint. On this issue both the parties have again not adduced any evidence after framing of these two issues aforesaid. So the properties remain same i.e. given in schedule A, A/1 & A/2 of the plaint. The property aforesaid will be divided first into ½ and ½ between Jamuna Devi and Jagta Devi then from ½ share of Jamuna Devi it will be divided again ½ and ½ between Sardar Jha and Shankar Jha. As Sardar Jha had no issue so the share of Srardar Jha will devolve to his nearest agnate Shankar Jha as rule of survivorship, and again it will be partition in between Jitendra Jha, Rajendra Jha and Mahendra Jha equally and out of share of Mahendra Jha it will be partitioned equally between his four children. Rest ½ share of Jagta Devi will be divided first 1/3 equal to Nand Kishore Choudhary, Rameshwar Choudhary and Gena Devi. As, Nand Kishore Choudhary had no issue his share will be devolved upon his nearest agnate Rameshwar Choudhary. Share of Rameshwar Choudhary will be divided equally between defendant no. 7 to 9 and share of Gena Devi will be divided equally between defendant no. 10 to 12. As I earlier discussed that this court has no jurisdiction and admittedly law does not permit this court to travel beyond the order of learned First Appellate Court so on the argument made by the parties no further finding can be given apart from two issues aforesaid. Accordingly, aforesaid these two issues are hereby decided as above.” 11. The order on remand of the learned trial court dated 06.04.2017 was sent to the learned 1st appellate court and then the impugned judgement dated 25.01.2018 has been passed holding that the plaintiff has not been able to prove his stand that he was the descendant of the recorded tenant 2025: JHHC: 22349 10 and held that Jagta Devi was the daughter of Chathu Jha and Jamna Devi was not the daughter of Chathu Jha. The findings are as follows: - “13.……………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………. Surprisingly at this stage the plaintiff amended their plaint and in their plaint the plaintiff came up with a new fact that Chhatu Jha had in fact only two daughters Jamuna Devi and Harkha Devi. After amendment of the plaint, the proforma defendants no. 1 to 6 also changed their stands to suit the plaintiff in his amended plaint and filed a supplementary written statement stating therein that the same fact which was mentioned in the amended plaint. This creates serious doubt as to which type of descendants the plaintiff and defendants no. 1 to 6 are, that they have no knowledge whether Chhatu Jha had three daughter or two daughters. In the original plaint they have accepted that Jagta Devi was the daughter of Chhatu Jha but in the amended plaint, they deny this fact and extinguished the existence of Jagta Devi, as daughter of Chhatu Jha. This also creates serious doubt about the genuineness of the contents of the plaint. Besides all the oral evidences made by several witnesses who were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and defendants existed on the record. These evidences all speak about the fact that Jagta Devi was the daughter of Chhatu Jha. 14. So far the documentary evidences are concerned, from the very beginning, the stand of the defendant no. 7 was that Jamuna Devi was not the daughter of Chhatu Jha. Neither Jamuna Devi nor their descendants were ever title holder of the suit properties or possessed the suit properties after the death of Chhatu Jha. In order to prove their possession the plaintiff had filed a case u/s 145 Cr.P.C. in which the plaintiff side was the first party and the contesting defendants were the second party. In that proceeding the possession was declared in favour of the second party (defendants no. 7 to 12). Against that order the plaintiff side preferred revision but the plaintiff lost the same. Thus the order of the learned Magistrate declaring the possession of defendants no. 7 to 12 became final. In the ongoing survey records of right prepared after Tasdique stage, after rejection of the objections raised by the plaintiff and defendants first party, has been prepared in favour of defendants no. 7 to 12. Though these documents are not final but prima-facie they prove the existence 2025: JHHC: 22349 11 of possession of the defendants no. 1 to 7 over the suit properties. The defendants have filed the copy of order and relevant documents related to the proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. and the order of revisional court which was preferred thereof and also the records of right for the three villages of the ongoing survey processes. These documents have been properly marked as Exhibits M, H, N, I, Q, R & T respectively. 15. Thus, from the analysis of the evidences both oral as well as documentary evidences adduced by both the parties, it transpires that the plaintiff has not remained firm on his stand regarding genealogy of the recorded tenants, which creates serious doubt about the genuineness of the claim of the plaintiff. First the plaintiff and the proforma defendants have accepted that Jagta Devi was the daughter of Chhatu Jha and subsequently both of them changed their stand which also creates serious doubt about their own existence as to whether they are the descendants of Chhatu Jha or not. Had they been the descendants of Chhatu Jha, then they must have known that how many daughters Chhatu Jha had. Even the witnesses who have been examined on their behalf have also stated that Jagta Devi was the daughter of Chhatu Jha. In such circumstances how they can resile from the earlier stand. On the other hand the defendants no. 1 to 7 have taken a firm stand and have remained consistent all through that Jagta Devi was the daughter of Chhatu Jha and Yamuna Devi was not the daughter of Chhatu Jha. Contesting defendants no. 7 to 12 have not only proved their case by adducing oral evidences but also by documentary evidences which outweigh the oral evidences of the plaintiff. On the one hand the contesting defendants have succeeded in bringing both oral and documentary evidences in support of the fact that Jamuna Devi was not the daughter of Chhatu Jha and on the other hand Jagta Devi is the daughter of Chhatu Jha. 16. Thus on the basis of discussions made herein above, I have reached to a conclusion that the plaintiff has not been able to prove his stand that he is the descendants of the recorded tenants. Though the learned lower court has dismissed the suit but while deciding the issue no. 4 the trial court has accepted that Jamuna Devi was the daughter of Chhatu Jha whereas this court has reached to a finding that Jauma Devi was not the daughter of Chhatu Jha. As such with the aforesaid modification 2025: JHHC: 22349 12 in judgment of the trial court, the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.11.2009 and 26.11.2009 respectively, passed by Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Subordinate Judge- IV, Deoghar in Title Partition Suit No. 274/1997 is hereby upheld. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed.” 12. The plaintiff is in 2nd appeal before this court. Altogether four substantial questions of law have been framed in this case vide orders dated 06.11.2019, 29.11.2023 and 25.03.2025 which are as under: (i) Whether while deciding the issue nos.6 and 7, the trial court came to the finding that the plaintiff and proforma defendants are in possession of the suit property partly and coming to that finding the appellate court below was justified in dismissing the suit? (ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court is against the mandate of the provision of Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C.? (iii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court is perverse on account of non-consideration of Exhibit 9/A? (iv)Whether the first appellate court was right in reversing the finding of the learned Trial Court that Jamuna Devi was the daughter of Chhathu Jha?” Arguments of the appellant 13. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was the sole plaintiff in the partition suit being Title (Partition) Suit No. 274 of 1997. The appellant had filed a genealogical table indicating that the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 to 6 (defendant 1st party) were descendants of Jamuna Devi, daughter of the common ancestor, Chathu Jha and defendant no. 7 to 12 (defendant 2nd party) were the descendants of Jagta Devi daughter of the common ancestor, Chathu Jha. Chathu Jha had 3 daughters and 3rd daughter was Harkha Devi who died issueless. It is not in dispute that the property initially belonged to Chathu 2025: JHHC: 22349 13 Jha. The suit was contested primarily on the ground that the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 1 to 6 were not the descendants of Chathu Jha. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the 1st judgment of the learned trial court dated 12.11.2009. The learned counsel has referred to issue no. 4, as framed by the learned trial court and submits that considering the issue as to whether Chhathu Jha had only two daughters namely, Jamuna Devi and Harkha Devi or had one another daughter also namely, Jagta Devi, and has submitted that there was no confusion that Jamuna Devi and Harkha Devi were the daughters of Chathu Jha and what was to be decided was as to whether there was a 3rd daughter of Chhathu Jha namely, Jagta Devi. The learned counsel has referred to the findings which was arrived at by the learned trial court in the judgment dated 12th November 2009 and has submitted that while deciding issue no. 4, it was held that Chathu Jha had not only two daughters, but had one more daughter namely Jagta Devi. With respect to issue no. 6 and 7, it was decided that Shankar Jha i.e., the father of the plaintiff, had not inherited the entire estate of Chathu Jha and that the defendant nos. 7 to 12 also had no absolute right, title and possession over the suit property. The issue nos. 6 and 7 were decided partly in favour of the plaintiff and partly in favour of the aforesaid contesting defendants. So far as issue no. 5 is concerned, the learned trial court decided that the defendant 1st party and the plaintiff are not in exclusive possession over the suit property, rather the suit land also belonged to the defendant 2nd and 3rd party. With respect to issue no. 8, the learned trial court held that there was no unity of title and possession regarding the suit land exclusively in between the plaintiff and the defendant 1st party, rather there is title and possession of defendant 2nd party also. While deciding issue no. 1 and 2 , the learned trial court was of the view that the defendant 2nd party and defendant 3rd party were made proforma 2025: JHHC: 22349 14 defendants so that the suit be decided in their presence and it was asserted that they have no share or interest and in para 15 of the written statement of 2nd and 3rd party, it was pleaded that there was no cause of action as these defendants were not approached for partition and ultimately it was held that the suit was not maintainable and the suit was dismissed. 15. The learned counsel submits that in first round of 1st appeal in Title Appeal No.47 of 2009, there was a limited remand vide judgement dated 21.02.2011, but, interalia, the findings with regard to issue no.4 by the learned 1st appellate court stood concluded by upholding the finding of the learned trial court. The ultimate finding related to issue no.4 as decided by the learned 1st appellate court vide judgement dated 21.02.2011 in the first round is quoted as under: “I have perused the entire document filed by the plaintiff and defendant. None of the document filed by the defendant negates the contention of the plaintiff/petitioner that Shankar Jha was not the Nati of the late Chathu Jha. The document filed by the plaintiff also does not register that defendant are not the legal heirs if the Nati of late Chathu Jha. Thus, from the perusal of document filed by the both parties and the oral testimony, learned trial court have rightly hold that the plaintiff, defendant first party and defendant second and third party are the legal hirs of late Shankar Jha and Rameshwar Chaudhary, Nand kishore Choudhary respectively who are Nati (daughter son) of late chathu Jha. I do not find any infirmity in the issue decided by the learned sub-judge.” 16. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the order upon remand dated 06.04.2017 on limited two issues passed by the learned trial court and has submitted that the learned trial court, in terms of order dated 21.02.2011 passed in Title Appeal No. 47 of 2009, confined itself only to the two issues as framed by the learned 1st appellate court and ultimately refused to enter into the dispute as to whether Jamuna Devi and Jagta Devi both were daughters of Chathu Jha or not and ultimately held that all the heirs of Chathu Jha were already made party in the proceedings. 2025: JHHC: 22349 15 With respect to the Schedule of the property, the learned trial court held that no further evidence was adduced by the parties in that connection and practically partitioned the property half and half between plaintiffs, defendant 1st set on one hand and defendant 2nd set and proforma defendants (defendant 3rd set) on the other hand. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that after the two additional issues were decided by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 06.04.2017, the matter was again taken up by the learned 1st Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.47 of 2009 in view of the order passed in M.A. No. 508 of 2014 and the learned 1st Appellate Court took note of the fact that the learned Trial Court while deciding the two issues on remand, had also pronounced upon the respective shares of the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that once the details of the property became final and genealogy was not in dispute, it was a consequential and inherent part of the adjudication by the learned trial Court to decide the share. He has submitted that the shares were decided half and half between two branches of two daughters of Chathu Jha. 18. He has further submitted that the learned 1st appellate Court in the 2nd round, while passing the impugned judgment dated 25th January, 2018, also held that the plaintiff was not able to prove this time that plaintiff was the descendant of the recorded tenant and that the Trial Court while deciding issue no. 4 was not justified to accept that Jamuna Devi was the daughter of Chathu Jha and 1st appellate court reached to a conclusion that Jamuna Devi was not the daughter of Chathu Jha. 19. The learned counsel submits that such finding in connection with issue no. 4 was beyond the scope of the learned 1st Appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment dated 25th January, 2018 as the finding in connection with issue no. 4 had attained finality. He submits that this is not only reflected by the earlier order passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court framing two additional issues and remanding the matter, but also apparent from the judgment passed by this court in Miscellaneous Appeal. 2025: JHHC: 22349 16 20. The learned counsel has submitted that so far as the 1st substantial question of law is concerned, the trial court had come to the finding that the plaintiff and the proforma defendants were not in exclusive possession of the property and they were in possession of the property along with other defendants and in such circumstances, the appellate court was not justified in dismissing the appeal. 21. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that so far as 2nd substantial question of law is concerned, the learned 1st appellate court has gone beyond the mandate, inasmuch as, firstly no point for determination was framed and the adjudication did not remain confined to the additional issues inspite of the fact that the decision on other issues, particularly issue no. 4, had attained finality in the 1st round of 1st appeal . The remand was a limited remand only on two issues and not an open remand on all the issues. 22. With respect to the 3rd substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Exhibit 9/A and has submitted that it is a transfer list and in the said document, it has been mentioned that Shankar Jha is the Nati of Chathu Jha and he is legal heir to inherit the property after his death. The learned counsel has submitted that this is over and above the fact that Jamuna Devi was held to be the daughter of Chathu Jha and such finding has attained finality in the 1st round of appeal before the 1st appellate court. 23. So far as 4th substantial question of law is concerned, it is submitted that the appellate court in the 2nd round of appellate proceedings was not right in reversing the finding of the learned trial court wherein it was held that Jamuna Devi was daughter of Chathu Jha and that finding had attained finality in the 1st round of appeal before the learned 1st appellate court. 24. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Section 105 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and submitted that under sub-Section 2 thereof, it has been provided that where any party aggrieved by an order 2025: JHHC: 22349 17 of remand from which an appeal lies does not appeal therefrom, he shall thereafter be precluded from disputing its correctness. He has submitted that the order of remand was appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1, which remedy the respondent had availed and ultimately the miscellaneous appeal being M.A. No. 508 of 2014 was disposed of without disturbing any finding in the 1st appellate judgement and therefore findings which concluded at the 1st appellate stage attained finality and there was a remand on account of only two additional issues. Arguments of the respondents 25. The learned senior counsel for the respondents has placed almost full text of the order passed by the learned trial court upon remand, the order passed in M.A. No. 508 of 2014, wherein the order of remand was challenged, and also placed the subsequent order passed by the learned appellate court which is under challenge in the present proceedings. 26. The learned senior counsel has submitted that there cannot be two judgments, one prior to remand and other after remand and what survives is only one judgment of the learned 1st appellate court i.e. the impugned judgment before this Court. He has further submitted that although the 1st appellate court in the impugned judgment has not framed any point of determination as such, but the same will not be decisive, inasmuch as, every aspect of the matter and every point has been considered by the learned 1st appellate court in the impugned judgment which has been passed after remand. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that all the materials have been taken into consideration to come to a finding that the learned trial court had wrongly decided issue No. 4 and the learned 1st appellate court has held that Jamuna Devi was not the daughter of Chathu Jha. 27. The learned senior counsel, while referring to Exhibit-9/a, has submitted that the same is like a mutation order and it was arising out of a sale deed and exhibit 9/a is not a document of inheritance and therefore recording in exhibit-9/a that Shankar Jha was nati of Chathu Jha has no 2025: JHHC: 22349 18 value in the eyes of law. However, during the course of arguments, the learned senior counsel has fairly submitted that there is no discussion of exhibit-9/a in the impugned judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court after remand. The learned senior counsel has submitted that exhibit- 9/a is not a document of title and therefore it is irrelevant as to whether that document has been considered by the learned 1st appellate court or not and it has got not much relevance. Rejoinder argument of the appellant 28. The learned counsel for the appellant, in response, has submitted that the learned 1st appellate court in the subsequent judgment after remand has recorded that though the learned lower court has dismissed the suit, but while deciding issue No. 4 the learned trial court had accepted that Jamuna Devi was the daughter of Chathu Jha, whereas the 1st appellate court in the 2nd round reached to a finding that Jamuna Devi was not the daughter of Chathu Jha. 29. The learned counsel has submitted that the finding recorded with regard to issue No. 4 was never challenged by the contesting defendants at any point of time. He has also referred to the submission of the defendant recorded in paragraph 11 who had stated that the judgment passed by the learned court was required to be upheld. The learned counsel has submitted that in spite of recording finding that Jamuna Devi was daughter of Chathu Jha, the learned trial court at the initial stage did not allow partition. It was the plaintiff who had filed the appeal before the 1st appellate court and the issue no. 4 , though not specifically challenged by the contesting defendant, but was fully considered by the learned 1st appellate court and finding was recorded upholding the finding on issue No. 4 by the learned trial court. 30. The learned counsel submits that the issue No. 4 having attained finality at the 1st round could not have been reopened by the impugned judgment. This is over and above the fact that the issue No. 4 was not even under challenge before the 1st appellate court at the time of passing 2025: JHHC: 22349 19 the order after remand during argument at the final stage. The learned counsel has also submitted that if the fact that Chathu Jha had three daughters and out of them Jagta Devi and Jamuna Devi were the surviving daughters, then the share which has been allocated by the learned trial court after remand is in accordance with law. Further response of the respondents 31. The learned counsel for the respondent has further responded to the aforesaid submission and submitted that the entire genealogy was in dispute and the plaintiff has been taking shifting stand and therefore the learned 1st appellate court has rightly held that the Jamuna Devi was not the daughter of Chathu Jha. He has submitted that it was the specific case of the defendants that Chathu Jha had 3 daughters Bachhi Devi, Harkha Devi and Jagta Devi, but Jamuna Devi was not his daughter. He has further submitted that both the sisters, namely, Bachhi Devi and Harkha Devi had expired and therefore the entire property devolved upon the legal heirs of Jagta Devi who were the contesting defendant Nos. 7 to 12. Findings of this Court 32. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the suit property stood recorded in the name of Chathu Jha, but there was serious dispute in connection with number of daughters of Chathu Jha. There was no dispute that Chathu Jha had no son. 33. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 6 were claiming through Jamuna Devi who was said to be one of the daughters of Chathu Jha and defendant Nos. 7 to 12 were claiming through another daughter, namely, Jagta Devi, said to be the daughter of Chathu Jha. Substantial question of law no. IV 34. The learned trial court had framed as many as 9 issues including issue No. 4 as to whether Chathu Jha had only two daughters namely Jamuna Devi and Harkha Devi or he had one another daughter also 2025: JHHC: 22349 20 namely Jagta Devi. There has been amendment in the pleading and it appears that the plaintiff claimed that Jagta Devi was not the daughter of Chathu Jha and the contesting defendants claimed that Jamuna Devi was not the daughter of Chathu Jha. However, it was not in dispute that one of the daughters of Chathu Jha ,namely, Harkha died issueless. The said issue no. 4 was decided by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 12.11.2009 taking into consideration both oral and documentary evidences including Exhibit-9 and 9/a and the learned trial court came to a definite finding as follows: - “Therefore, I find and hold that Chattu Jha had not only two daughters, but he had also one another daughter, namely, Jagta Devi.” 35. The said finding when read with issue No. 4 reveals that the trial court held that Chattu Jha had three daughters, Jamuna Devi, Harkha Devi and Jagta Devi. 36. The learned 1st appellate court in the 1st round in the appeal filed by the plaintiff being Title Appeal No. 47 of 2009 vide judgment dated 21.02.2011 recorded a specific finding with regard to issue No. 4 and also taking into consideration Exhibit-9 and 9/a observed that the recital of Exhibit-9 speaks that Shankar Jha is nati of Chathu Jha and that Exhibit- 9/a also disclosed that Shankar Jha is nati of Chathu Jha and is the legal heir to inherit. The argument of the contesting defendants that, Exhibit-9 and 9/a filed by the plaintiff is a mistake list and could not be relied upon, was also rejected. The learned 1st appellate court vide aforesaid judgment dated 21.02.2011 recorded a finding that the learned trial court had rightly held that the plaintiff, defendant 1st party, defendant 2nd and 3rd party are legal heirs of late Shankar Jha, Rameshwar Choudhary and Nand Kishore Choudhary respectively who are nati [daughter’s son] of late Chathu Jha. It is not in dispute that Shankar Jha is son of Jamuna Devi as he claimed so in the plaint itself and was supported by exhibit 9 and 9/a. This Court 2025: JHHC: 22349 21 also finds that the learned 1st appellate court while deciding issue No. 4 has given a clear finding as follows: “……………………………………………………………………………. From the oral testimony of witnesses adduced, it is clear that witnesses have disclosed that late Chathu Jha had three daughters, namely, Jamuna Devi, Harkha Devi and Jagta Devi. The plaintiffs in support of their contention have filed documents before the Court. ……………………………” 37. The learned 1st appellate court vide judgment dated 21.02.2011, after having upheld the finding of the learned trial court with regard to issue No. 4, was of the view that two further issues were required to be decided by the learned trial court with regards to Title (Partition ) Suit with regards the remaining property of Chattu Jha and other legal heirs of Chattu Jha and consequently, the matter was remanded to the learned trial court after framing two additional issues as follows: - “(a) what are the properties of late Chattu Jha which is required to be partitioned between the plaintiff, defendants first party and second party. (b) whether all the heirs of late Chattu Jha have been made party in the present suit? 38. The learned 1st appellate court vide judgment dated 21.02.2011 also directed that the learned Sub-Judge shall give finding on these issues and decide the suit for partition. The learned 1st appellate court did not ask the learned trial court to return the finding on the aforesaid additional two issues so framed for further decision by the learned 1st appellate court. However, the judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court dated 21.02.2011 was challenged by the defendants before this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 508/2014 which was decided vide order dated 02.02.2017. 39. In Misc. Appeal No. 508/2014, this Court took note of the fact that much time had elapsed from the date of the order of remand and the fresh order to be passed by the learned trial court pursuant to the order of remand was at advance stage. This Court while deciding Misc. Appeal 2025: JHHC: 22349 22 No. 508/2014 was also of the view that no doubt duty is cast upon the 1st appellate court to frame points for determination for adjudication, but, it is also settled principle that when the court applies its judicial mind independently and on examination and appreciation of the evidence on record, it records its satisfaction while arriving at the findings on each issue either agreeing or disagreeing with the findings on the issues framed by the trial court and that amounts to compliance of the provision of Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC. This Court in M.A. No. 508/2014 directed that the findings on the two additional issues be returned to the learned 1st appellate court and the 1st appellate court to decide the 1st appeal within stipulated time. 40. Upon remand, the learned trial court, while deciding the aforesaid two additional issues vide order dated 06.04.2017, refused to enter into the argument advanced by the contesting defendants questioning that Jamuna Devi was not the daughter of Chathu Jha, on the ground that both the courts, that is, trial court at the first instance and the 1st appellate court vide judgment dated 21.02.2011 have decided that Chathu Jha had three daughters, namely, Jamuna Devi, Harkha Devi and Jagta Devi and the trial court had no jurisdiction to re-agitate or reappraise the said issue. The learned trial court also recorded that no further evidence was led upon remand and ultimately held that all the heirs of Late Chathu Jha were already made party in the suit and no further property of Chattu Jha required to be partitioned were brought on record. Consequently, the learned trial court found that there were only three schedules to the plaint i.e. Schedule-A, A/1 and A/2 and considering the admitted fact that Harkha Devi had already expired issueless, divided the suit property ½ and ½ between the legal heirs and successors of Jamuna Devi on one hand and Jagta Devi on the other hand. The legal heirs and successors of Jagta Devi were being represented by defendant Nos. 7 to 12 and of that of Jamuna Devi were representing by plaintiff and 2025: JHHC: 22349 23 defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and accordingly distributed the share amongst the legal heirs and successors of Jamuna Devi and Jagta Devi. 41. So far as the distribution of share as done by the learned trial court vide order dated 06.04.2017 upon remand is concerned, it is not in dispute amongst both the parties during the course of arguments before this Court that in case this Court holds that Chattu Jha had three daughters, namely, Jamuna Devi, Harkha Devi (died issueless) and Jagta Devi, then the distribution is in accordance with law. However, it has been agitated by the learned senior counsel for the respondents that the learned 1st appellate court has recorded a finding in the impugned judgment passed after remand that the learned trial court in the 1st round had wrongly decided that Jamuna Devi was the daughter of Chathu Jha and it is their case that the entire property of Chathu Jha would devolve only upon the legal heirs and successors of Jagta Devi i.e. defendant Nos. 7 to 12. 42. The learned 1st appellate court, while passing the impugned judgment, after the two additional issues were decided by the learned trial court, has observed that the learned trial court was required to pass order only on the two additional issues on remand and discarded the other portions of the order passed by the learned trial court in the order dated 06.04.2017. 43. The learned 1st appellate court did not frame any further point for determination over and above the issues already framed and decided in the 1st round while passing the judgment dated 21.02.2011, but while passing the impugned judgment has reappraised the amended pleadings of the parties and observed that the plaintiff had amended the plaint and in the amended plaint the plaintiff came up with a new fact that Chathu Jha had in fact only two daughters, namely, Jamuna Devi and Harkha Devi and the plaintiff had completely excluded Jagta Devi. The learned court also recorded that this act of plaintiff creates a serious doubt about which type of descendants are the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 6, who had no knowledge whether Chathu Jha had 3 daughters or 2 daughters and further 2025: JHHC: 22349 24 recorded that the plaintiff had taken a different stand in the amended plaint which create a doubt about the genuineness of the contents of the plaint. 44. The learned 1st appellate court in the impugned judgment dated 25.01.2018 also recorded that all the oral evidences made by several witnesses, who were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and defendants, existed on the record and these evidences all speak about the fact that Jagta Devi was the daughter of Chathu Jha. The learned 1st appellate court in the impugned judgement dated 25.01.2018 in the operative portion has recorded at paragraph 16 that the plaintiff has not been able to prove that he was the descendant of recorded tenant, Chattu Jha. The plaintiff was claiming through Jamuna Devi stating that Jamuna Devi was the daughter of the recorded tenant Chathu Jha. 45. This Court finds that the learned trial court, in the 1st round, vide judgment dated 12.11.2009 recorded a clear finding that Jamuna Devi was the daughter of Chathu Jha and that Chathu Jha had three daughters, namely, Jamuna Devi, Harkha Devi and Jagta Devi and it was not in dispute that the plaintiff and defendant no.1 to 6 were the descendants through Jamuna Devi. The learned 1st appellate court, in the 1st round, while passing the judgment dated 21.02.2011 had also given concurrent finding and has upheld the finding of the learned trial court with respect to issue No. 4. This Court also finds that the matter was remanded to the learned trial court by the 1st appellate court in the 1st round on 2 additional issues, as to whether all the heirs of Chattu Jha and all the properties of Chattu Jha which could be subjected to partition were brought on record. The additional 2 issues certainly did not include the issue as to whether Jamuna Devi was the daughter of Chathu Jha. Even the learned trial court upon remand, while passing order dated 06.04.2017, did not disturb the finding that Jamuna Devi and also Jagta devi were daughters of Chattu Jha and one daughter, Harka Devi had died issueless by citing reasons that 2025: JHHC: 22349 25 there was no scope to the learned trial court to re-agitate the issue regarding issue No. 4. 46. This Court finds that the learned 1st appellate court passed the impugned judgment 25.01.2018 after the two issues were decided by the learned trial court upon remand and disturbed the finding with regard to issue No. 4 which had already attained finality in the 1st round. 47. This Court is of the view that certain issues were finally decided by the learned 1st appellate court in the 1st round while passing the judgment dated 21.02.2011 which included issue No. 4. Further, two additional issues, in connection with which the order of remand was passed for consideration by the learned trial court, have no relation with issue No. 4. The additional issues were to ensure that all legal heirs and all properties of Chattu Jha be brought on record. In fact, upon remand, no further evidence was led before the learned trial court. In the impugned judgment, also there is no discussion with respect to any fresh materials which could have come or had come before the learned trial court or even before the learned 1st appellate court having a bearing in connection with issue No. 4 which attained finality in the 1st round. 48. Still the learned 1st appellate court has disturbed the finding with regard to issue No. 4 which attained finality in the 1st round, primarily by referring to different stand taken by the plaintiff by amending the plaint which was already available and considered in the 1st round. This Court is of the view that issue No. 4, and consequently, the finding that Chathu Jha had three daughters, namely, Jamuna Devi, Harkha Devi and Jagta Devi and Harkha Devi had expired, had attained finality. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there was no scope for the 1st appellate court to disturb the finding with regard to issue no. 4 while passing the impugned judgment dated 25.01.2018. 49. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the substantial question of law no. IV is decided in favour of the appellant and against the contesting respondents and it is held that the learned 1st appellate 2025: JHHC: 22349 26 court while passing the impugned judgment dated 25.01.2018 was not right in reversing the finding of the learned trial court on issue no. 4. Substantial question of law no. I 50. So far as substantial question of law No. I whether while deciding the issue Nos. 6 and 7, the trial court came to the finding that the plaintiff and proforma defendants are in possession of the suit property partly and coming to that finding the appellate court below was justified in dismissing the suit is concerned, the finding in connection with the aforesaid issues also attained finality while passing the judgment dated 21.02.2011 by the 1st appellate court in the 1st round. The learned 1st appellate court in the 1st round has recorded a clear finding that the property was in joint possession. Such finding has also attained finality. In spite of such finding having attained finality, the learned 1st appellate court while passing the impugned judgment was not justified in dismissing the suit by travelling into issues which had already attained finality in the 1st round. The aforesaid substantial question of law No. I is accordingly answered in favour of the appellant and against the contesting respondents. Substantial question of law no. III 51. So far as the substantial question of law no. III as to whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court is perverse on account of non-consideration of Exhibit 9/A is concerned, it is not in dispute by the learned counsel for the parties that Exhibit-9/A has not at all been considered by the learned 1st appellate court while passing the impugned judgment dated 25.01.2018 although the learned court entered into issue no.4 which attained finality in the 1st round as held above. The exhibit-9 and 9/a were important documents which were considered by the trial court and also the 1st appellate court in the first round to decide issue no.4. As held above, there was no scope for the 1st appellate court in the 2nd round to reconsider the issue no 4. Otherwise 2025: JHHC: 22349 27 also, the 1st appellate court has committed perversity in not considered the exhibit-9 and 9/a while reversing the finding on issue no. 4. Accordingly, it is held that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned 1st appellate court is perverse on account of non-consideration of Exhibit 9/A while reversing the finding on issue no.4. The substantial question of law no. III is accordingly decided in favour of the appellant. Substantial question of law no. II 52. So far as the substantial question of law no. II as to whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court is against the mandate of the provision of Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C, is concerned, this Court finds that the learned 1st appellate court, while passing the impugned judgment dated 25.01.2018, after the two issues were decided and forwarded to the learned 1st appellate court by the learned trial court, has travelled beyond its jurisdiction while entering into the dispute as to whether Jamuna Devi and Jagta Devi were the daughters of Chathu Jha which had attained finality in the 1st round vide judgement passed by the learned 1st appellate court dated 21.02.2011. The learned 1st appellate court while passing the impugned judgement has neither framed any point for determination nor has applied its mind on the consequence of determination of the two additional issues by the learned trial court upon remand apart from observing that the learned trial court travelled beyond jurisdiction in pronouncing on matters other than the two additional issues. The learned trial court clearly pronounced on the two additional issues and held that neither any further legal heir nor any further property of Chattu Jha which could be subjected to partition were brought on record as no further evidence was led by the parties upon remand. The 1st appellate court has in fact acted contrary to the provision or Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC by entering into issue which was concluded and by not framing any point of determination on the issues decided by the learned trial court upon remand. Accordingly, this court holds that the 2025: JHHC: 22349 28 learned 1st appellate court has acted against the mandate of the provision of Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C. The substantial question of law no. II is accordingly decided in favour of the appellant. 53. The learned 1st appellate court has taken note of the fact that the learned trial court was to forward the decision on the additional issues to the learned 1st appellate court and was not supposed to pass the order of partition. During the course of arguments, it is not in dispute from the side of the learned counsel for the parties that if Jamuna Devi is ultimately held to be one of the daughters of Chathu Jha, then under such circumstances, distribution made by the learned trial court would be as per law. 54. Considering the aforesaid answers to the substantial questions of law, the impugned judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, which is hereby set-aside. 55. Office is directed to prepare a decree indicating the respective share of the properties as follows:- “The property given in schedule A, A/1 and A/2 will be first divided into ½ and ½ between Jamuna Devi and Jagta Devi. From ½ share of Jamuna Devi, it will be divided again ½ and ½ between Sardar Jha and Shankar Jha. As Sardar Jha had no issue so the share of Sardar Jha will devolve to his nearest agnate Shankar Jha as rule of survivorship, and again it will be partitioned in between Jitendra Jha (plaintiff), Rajendra Jha (defendant no.1) and Mahendra Jha (defendant no.2-dead) equally and out of share of Mahendra Jha it will be partitioned equally between his four children (defendant nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6). Rest ½ share of Jagta Devi will be divided first 1/3 equal to Nand Kishore Choudhary, Rameshwar Choudhary and Gena Devi. As, Nand Kishore Choudhary had no issue his share will be devolved upon his nearest agnate Rameshwar Choudhary. Share of late Rameshwar Choudhary will be divided equally between defendant 2025: JHHC: 22349 29 no. 7 to 9 and share of Gena Devi will be divided equally between defendant no. 10 to 12. Nirmala Devi -defendant no.12 has also expired as per the 1st appellate decree and she has been substituted by four persons namely, Jay Prakash Jha, Sriprakash Jha, Om Prakash Jha and Kalyani Devi. Accordingly, the share of Nirmala Devi will devolve equally amongst her legal heirs.” 56. This second appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 57. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 58. Let this order be communicated to the concerned courts through ‘e- mail/Fax’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 31.07.2025 Mukul/-