2025:JHHC:25859 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S. A. No. 94 of 1993(R) 1. Dhurub Prasad Bid 2. Lachmi Narayan Bid 3. Sat Narayan Bid @ Satya Narayan Bid 4. Jayanti Bid @ Jayanti Kumar Bid (Deleted and substituted vide order dated 29.08.2008) 4(i) Alpana Bid 4(ii) Prasanjeet Kumar Bid 4(iii)Sidarth Bid 5. Gopal Bid@ Gopal Krishna Bid (Deleted and Substituted) 5.(a) Most. Shanti Bid-Wife 5.(b) Jhuma Bid-Daughter (Minor) 5.(c)Ruma Bid- Do 5.(d) Chandan Kr. Bid- Son (Minor) 5.(e)Niku Bid- Son (Minor_ Nos. 1 to 5 sons of Late Kamla Kant Bid All residents of Dhurwa Mor, Village Bundu, P.S. Bundu, P.O. Bundu, District-Ranchi … … Plaintiffs/Respondents/Appellants Versus 1. Gobardhan Bid, Son of Late Durga Charan Bid (Deleted and substituted vide order dated 06.04.2001) 1(a) Meera Bid 1(b) Sandeep Bid @ Bhura Bid 1(c) Abhijit Bid @ Liptu Bid 1(d)Arimit Bid @ Mithu Bid All residents of village-Bundu, P.O. Bundu, P.S. Bundu, District- Ranchi. 2. Mostt. Bahari Bala Bid @ Baha Bid W/O: Late Hari Nrayan Bid 3. Bharti Rani Bid @ Bharati Rani Bid 4. Lakhi Rani Bid 5. Tuki Rani Bid @ Pravati Bid 3 to 5 are the daughters of Late Hari Narayan Bid. 6. Gobardhan Bid 7. Uttam Bid 6 and 7 sons of Late Hari Narayan Bid 8. Swapan Kumar Bid 9. Tapan Kumar Bid 10. Milan Kumar Bid 11. Samaran Kumar Bid 12. Tapas Kumar Bid Sons of Late Bibhuti Bhushan Bid 13. Putul Rani Bid @ Avaya Bid 14. Kumari Bali Bid @ Sumita Bid 13 and 14 are daughters of Late Bibhuti Bhushan Bid 2025:JHHC:25859 2 15. Mostt. Malti Devi, W/O: Late Bibhuti Bhushan Bid (Deleted and substituted vide order dated 08.01.2016) 15(a)Swapan Kumar Bid 15(b)Tapan Bid 15(c)Tapas Kumar Bid Resident of Bundu, Ranchi. 16. Bishwanath Bid, Son of Late Durga Charan Bid Sl. No. 6 is minor so he is represented through his mother and next friend Serial No.2 who has got no adverse interest to that of the minor. All residents of Village Bundu, P.S. Bundu, District: Ranchi. … … Defendants/Appellants/Respondents 17. Smt. Alo Rani Bid, Daughter of Late Hari Narayan Bid, Resident of Village Bundu, P.S. Bundu, District-Ranchi. … … Defendant No.2(a)/Proforma Respondent/Proforma Respondent 18. Domnath Bid (Died and substituted vide order dated 29.08.2008) 18.(i) Arti Bala Wife of Late Nimai Chandra Bid 18.(ii) Arup Kumar Bid, Son of Late Nimai Chandra Bid 19. Nandu Lal Bid Resident of Dhurwa Mor, Village Bundu, P.O. & P.S. Bundu, District-Ranchi. … … Plaintiffs/ Respondents/Proforma Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate : Ms. Trishna Sagar, Advocate --- 36/28.08.2025 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.09.1993 (decree signed on 11.10.1993) passed by the learned 6th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby Title Appeal No. 13 of 1990/ 06 of 1991 has been allowed and the judgment dated 08.01.1990 (decree signed on 05.02.1990) in Title Suit No. 302 of 1985 passed by the learned Sub-Judge III, Khunti has been set-aside. 3. The suit was decreed by the learned trial court. The judgment and decree of the learned trial court was set aside by the learned 1st 2025:JHHC:25859 3 appellate court accordingly, the plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. 4. This appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated 01.12.1994 by framing the following substantial question of law:- A. Whether the learned court of appeal below was erred in law in interpreting Ext.1? B. Whether the court of appeal below erred in law in holding that Ext.1 was a deed of gift rather than memorandum of family arrangement? C. Whether the findings of the court below that the defendants/respondents are residing in the suit premises as owner is sustainable in law? D. Whether in view of the findings of the learned court below regarding jointness of the property the defendants who are strangers to the family have acquired a title over a specified portion of the joint property? E. Whether in view of the evidence of Santosh Kumar Bid son of Late Gauri Prasad Bid, the suit of the plaintiff could have been dismissed? Case of the plaintiffs 5. The case of the plaintiffs was that plot No. 2218 under Khata No. 732 area 0.1 decimal and plot No. 2219 under Khata No. 732 area 0.07 decimals were owned and possessed by Suraj Narayan Bid, the grandfather of the plaintiffs, who died leaving behind 5 sons namely- i. Gouri Prasad Bid, ii. Guhi Ram Bid, iii. Banmali Bid, iv. Kamla Kant Bid, and v. Anand Prasad Bid Gauri Prasad Bid died leaving behind his one son namely Santosh Kumar Bid and three daughters; Guhi Ram Bid died leaving behind 3 sons Badal Chandra, Ajit Chandra and Rathu Chandra and also widow Uma Devi; 2025:JHHC:25859 4 Banmali Bid died leaving behind the plaintiffs being his sons, two daughters and widow but the daughters and the widow of the Banmali Bid have not been impleaded in the suit. Anand Prasad Bid died bachelor. 6. It was the case of the plaintiffs that Suraj Narayan Bid during his life time wanted to arrange his properties in such a manner that after his death, there may not be any dispute among his sons. Accordingly, the suit property was allotted to Kamla Kant Bid in a mutual family arrangement and a document was drawn up by Suraj Narayan Bid and all his five sons by which the allotment of the suit property to Kamla Kant Bid was acknowledged and confirmed on 5.8.1934. Thereafter, Kamla Kant Bid was in possession of the suit property. However, Kamla Kant Bid permitted his brothers to reside in the house over the suit property and it was the case of the plaintiffs that the possession of the said brothers was permissive possession. 7. Further case of the plaintiffs is that Gouri Prasad Bid and Guhi Ram Bid had left the suit property and Banmali Bid had also shifted to another place. After the death of Banmali Bid, his son Lagen Chandra Bid was permitted by Kamla Kant Bid to reside in a portion of the suit property. The further case of the plaintiffs was that the defendants were inducted as tenants by Kamla Kant Bid in respect of another portion of the suit property. 8. However, in the year 1975 Kamla Kant Bid came to know that the defendants, who were tenants, had applied for mutation of their names with respect of 4 decimals in connection with plot No.2219 under Khata No.732. Immediately thereafter, Kamla Kant Bid objected and for the first time Kamla Kant Bid came to know that the defendants were trying to set up title to the property on the basis of 2 sale deeds alleged to have been executed by Gauri Prasad Bid in the year 1962 and by Ajit Chandra Bid and Badal Chandra Bid in the year 1967. It was alleged that the said sale deeds were forged and fabricated documents and were not executed by the said persons. It 2025:JHHC:25859 5 was also alleged that the said sale deeds were without any consideration. 9. The further case of the plaintiffs was that the Circle Officer rejected the petition of mutation filed by the defendants. The learned Land Reform Deputy Collector confirmed the order of the Circle Officer. However, the Additional Collector Ranchi remanded the case back to the circle officer and ultimately the suit was filed. Case of the defendants 10. The case of the defendants was that the suit was not maintainable, it was barred by limitation and adverse possession. It was also asserted that all the surviving sons or their successors in interest and the widow and daughters of Kamla Kant Bid were necessary party. It was asserted that the plaintiffs had no title over the property and they were not in possession of the suit property for more than last 12 years. The defendants stated that it was false to say that there was family arrangement by which the suit property was allocated to Kamla Kant Bid and there was no reasons as to why Suraj Narayan Bid would choose Kamla Kant over his five sons. It was asserted that there was no consideration to the family arrangement. It was asserted by the defendants that the document of family arrangement was forged and fabricated and it cannot be accepted as valid. 11. It was the further case of the defendants that after death of Suraj Narayan Bid, Kamla Kant Bid and his sons left the parental residence and started living at Dhurwa More. Plot No. 2218 of Khata No. 732 did not belong to Suraj Narayan Bid but belonged to his brother Darpa Narain from whom Suraj Narayan Bid had purchased. It was denied that Kamla Kant permitted other brothers to live over the property, rather they were residing over the property by their own right and title and it was denied that their possession was permissive. It was also asserted by the defendants that Gauri Prasad had sold a portion of the suit property in the year 1962 by registered deed in plot No. 2219 measuring 7 decimals contained two houses and one Sahan. Suraj Narayan had built several other houses in the same plot to 2025:JHHC:25859 6 accommodate his big family and had even purchased the house from his brother in plot No. 2218. It was further asserted that Gauri Prasad Bid after selling his property left the parental residence and went away to his village. The sale deed executed and registered by Gauri Prasad in favour of defendants is genuine, valid and for consideration and they were put in possession over the suit property by Gauri Prasad Bid. 12. Similarly, after death of Guhi Ram Bid, his two sons Badal and Ajit, who were there till their father’s death, sold their property containing house in 2 decimals to the defendants in the year 1967 for consideration of Rs.2,000/- and executed the registered deed of sale and they also went away to their village. It was also asserted that Nagen was living in his own house and it was false that he was living with the permission of Kamla Kant. The defendants claimed that they were in possession of the property by their own right, title and by virtue of aforesaid sale deed and not as tenant. It was also asserted that it was not correct to say that the plaintiffs came to know about the sale deed in year 1975 when the defendants applied for mutation. It was stated that the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the suit property. 13. The suit was decreed on contest and the title of the plaintiffs was declared and their possession was also confirmed over the suit land and the defendants were directed to give vacant possession of suit land to the plaintiffs. However, on appeal, the judgement and decree of the learned trial court was set-aside by the learned 1st appellate court and the plaintiffs are the appellants before this court. Arguments of the appellants. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants while referring to the Exhibit-1 has submitted that the findings of the Court reveal that there were other properties and they were also allocated to different brothers. He has also submitted that there was no legal impediment in allocation of the suit property exclusively to Kamla Kant Bid. He has further submitted that the learned 1st appellate court has giving 2025:JHHC:25859 7 conflicting finding in as much as on the one hand it has been held that the Exhibit-1 appears to be a gift deed and on the other hand it has been held that in absence of attestation and registration it cannot be said to be a gift deed. The learned counsel has submitted that the Exhibit-1 has been wrongly interpreted by the learned 1st appellate court and the said document is a memorandum of family arrangement and therefore, the substantial question of law No. A & B are fit to be answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. He has also submitted that the direct consequence of such a finding would be that the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs would be declared with respect to the suit property by virtue of Exhibit-1. 15. Learned counsel while referring to the substantial question of law No. C has submitted that the defendants were not residing over the suit property as owners but they were tenants over the suit property. Learned counsel while referring to the substantial question of law No. D has submitted that regarding the jointness of the property the defendants, who are strangers to the family, could not have acquired title over a specified portion of the joint property. 16. Learned counsel while referring to the substantial question of law No. E, has referred to the evidence of Santosh Kumar Bid, s/o Gauri Prasad Bid, and has submitted that he has clearly stated that Kamla Kant Bid had got the suit property from his father Suraj Narayan Bid in the year 1934 by a written document and the allocation of property exclusively to Kamla Kant Bid was accepted by all the brothers. He has also denied that his father had sold the property to the defendants. 17. Learned counsel submits that the son of the vendor of the property has himself deposed that his father had not sold the property and the evidence of P.W-1 has not been properly examined by the learned 1st appellate court while reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. Arguments of the respondents. 2025:JHHC:25859 8 18. Learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the prayer of the appellants has submitted that the trial court had not at all considered the contents, import, legality and validity of Exhibit-1, rather the learned trial court had decreed the suit on the basis of weakness of the case of the defendants. 19. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the learned 1st appellate court in paragraph 14 has quoted the content of Exhibit-1 and has discussed the same in detail and ultimately held in paragraph 17 that the said document can be at best be a gift deed which was unregistered and it does not confer any right, title and interest upon the father of the plaintiffs. The trial court’s judgement 20. The following issue were framed by the learned trial court:- i. Is the suit as framed maintainable in its present form? ii. Have plaintiffs got valid cause of action for the suit? iii. Is the suit barred by law of limitation and adverse possession? iv. Are plaintiffs entitled for declaration of title and recovery of possession after evicting the defendants from the suit property Schedule A and B? v. Are plaintiffs entitled to any other reliefs as claimed in the plaint? 21. So far as issue no. IV is concerned, the learned trial observed that the defendants claimed to have purchased the suit land in the year 1962 and 1967, but remained silent till 1974 and after passing of 12 years and 13 years they filed a mutation petition in the year 1975 for the reason best known to them. It was observed that the general convention is that after purchase of any lands, people immediately filed mutation petition and since there was no explanation for 12 and 13 years delay in filing the mutation petition it creates doubt about the genuineness of the alleged sale deed. The learned court also considered the evidence of the defendants according to whom all the four brothers got 2 decimals each but Exhibit-B showed that Gauri Prasad Bid mortgaged 3 decimals of land to Dukhza Chel which was not found convincing and also recorded that sale deed Exhibit-A was 2025:JHHC:25859 9 executed for 2 decimals only and there was no explanation of 1 decimal area. It was further observed that the boundary also differed in both the Exhibit-A and Exhibit-B and in Exhibit- A/1 the boundary was concealed. 22. The learned trial court discussed the materials on record and held that both the sale deeds relied upon by the defendants were farjee (fraudulent) as the executant had no right, title, interest and possession to execute the sale deeds and held that the plaintiffs had valid right and title over the suit land. The issue No. IV was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. 23. So far as issue No. I, II, III and V are concerned, the learned trial court held that the possession of the defendants were permissive possession. The point of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. There must be a point from which the limitations starts. The learned trial court observed that the defendants have not been able to give specification with regard to their claim of adverse possession and ultimately held that the suit was not barred by limitation and adverse possession and the suit was maintainable and the plaintiffs had the valid cause of action and issue No. I, II, III and V were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants and ultimately the suit was decreed. 24. The court’s judgment was challenged and during pendency of the appeal an additional issue was framed on which, finding was to be recorded by the learned trial court. The additional issue so framed by the learned 1st appellate court is as under: - Whether the defendants are tenants in the suit premises as alleged by the plaintiffs or they are in possession of the suit premises on the basis of sale deeds executed by Gauri Prasad in the year 1962 and Badal and Ajeet in the year 1967? The trial court while answering the said issue held that the defendants were tenants in the suit property. The 1st appellate court’s judgement. 2025:JHHC:25859 10 25. The learned 1st appellate court framed following points for determination: - i. Whether the original owner of the suit property Surya Narayan Bid allotted the suit property (Properties of Schedule A and B) to his son Kamla Kant Bid by Exhibit-1 and whether Exhibit-1 confers right, title and interest upon Kamla Kant Bid? ii. Whether the defendants are tenants of Kamla Kant Bid in the premises described in Schedule B of the plaint or whether the defendants are residing therein (in the property mentioned in Schedule B) as rightful owner after purchasing the same from Gauri Prasad Bid in the year 1962 and from Ajit Chandara Bid and Badal Chandra Bid in the year 1967? 26. The learned 1st appellate court decided the point of determination No. (i) and also quoted the contents of Exhibit-1 in paragraph 14 and held that the Exhbit-1 is in the nature of gift because by this document Suraj Narayan Bid transferred his all right, title and interest in the suit property and delivered possession of the same to Kamla Kant Bid. The court was of the view that the document of gift was required to be compulsorily registered and was also required to have attestation of two witnesses, which was not done. The learned 1st appellate court was of the view that the document could not have taken effect as a gift. 27. The learned 1st appellate court also observed that it was not the case of the plaintiffs that his grandfather had executed a deed of gift in favour of their father. The plaintiff (P.W-5) had stated that his grandfather had executed a will in favour of his father. The court also observed that the document cannot be considered as a deed of partition. It was observed that Surya Narayan Bid was the absolute owner of the suit property and was entitled to dispose of his property by way of will, gift or sale. However, he could not have partitioned his 2025:JHHC:25859 11 absolute property amongst his sons to take effect during his life time after death. 28. The learned 1st appellate court also observed that Exhibit-1 was not acted upon inasmuch as no steps were taken by the plaintiffs or their father for more than 50 years ultimately the learned 1st appellate court held that the Exhibit-1 did not confer any right, title and interest upon the plaintiffs. It did not confer title and interest upon Kamla Kant Bid and Exhibit-1 appeared to be doubtful and cannot be relied upon. The finding of the learned trial court on this point was reversed. 29. So far as the point No. (ii) is concerned, the learned 1st appellate court recorded a finding that the defendants were occupying a portion of the suit premises from 1962 and Exhibit-A shows that they had purchased two decimals of land from Gauri Prasad Bid, one of the sons of Suraj Narayan Bid in the year 1962. The defendants further purchased 2 decimals of land in dispute from Ajit and Badal sons of Guhin Ram Bid. Exhibit-C showed that Guhi Ram Bid was also allotted 1/3rd share in the suit property. The learned 1st appellate court held that the there was no evidence to show that the defendants were residing in the suit property as a tenant, there was no proof that the defendants have ever paid rent for the property described in schedule B, either to Kamla Kant Bid or to his sons who were plaintiffs in the suit. The learned 1st appellate court ultimately held that the defendants were residing in the suit property not as a tenant of the plaintiffs but as the owners of the of the portion occupied by them. The findings of the learned trial court on this point was also reversed. 30. The learned 1st appellate court also observed that the plaintiffs have not made the legal heirs of Suraj Narayan Bid as party in the suit and the plaintiffs were not entitled for declaration of the title over the properties described in Schedule A of the plaint specially when one portion of the property described in Schedule A was in possession of Lagen Bid Son of Guhi Ram Bid. 31. This Court finds that the findings of the learned 1st appellate court that the defendants were not occupying the suit property at 2025:JHHC:25859 12 schedule B as tenants has attained finality inasmuch as there is substantial question of law framed relating to the tenancy of the defendants. 32. So far as the substantial question of law Nos. A and B are concerned, both of them are related to Exhibit-1, the contents of Exhibit-1 have been quoted by the learned 1st appellate court in paragraph 14. This Court has also gone through Exhbit-1 as was available in the records received from the concerned court. The Exhibit-1 reveals that it was executed by Suraj Narayan Bid in favour of Kamla Kant Bid stating that Kamla Kant Bid would take care of him during the life time and Kamla Kant Bid will have the exclusive title over the property and the other four sons will have no right, title and interest over the property and by virtue of this document itself he says that the property is transferred to Kamla Kant Bid. Although, this document was termed in the plaint as family arrangement and it was asserted that Kamla Kant Bid was handed over the property in family partition. However, on the face of the document i.e. Exhibit-1, this court finds that exhibit-1 creates title in favour of Kamla Kant Bid by his father Suraj Narayan Bid in exclusion of his four sons. There is no consideration in terms of money involved in the document. However, this document seeks to transfer right, title and interest over the suit property exclusively to Kamla Kant Bid. This document can neither be termed as a document of partition nor can be termed as a memorandum of family arrangement as it does not refer to any past transaction being recorded in this document (Exhibit-1) rather this document itself seeks to extinguish the right, title and interest of the owner of the property Suraj Narayan Bid in favour of Kamla Kant bid. 33. This Court finds that the learned 1st appellate court has rightly held that the document can at best be said to be a gift transferring the right, title and interest over the suit property in favour of Kamla Kant Bid and in absence of registration, the same cannot be taken into evidence. The learned 1st appellate court has also taken into consideration that the plaintiffs in his evidence has claimed that this 2025:JHHC:25859 13 document was a will. This Court is of the view that such stand of the plaintiffs which was taken for the first time during evidence stating that it was a will is also not in accordance with law in view of the fact that the said document Exhibit-1 does not reveal that it will take its effect upon death of Suraj Narayan Bid. The finding of the learned 1st appellate court in connection with this document has been given in paragraph 15 of the appellate court’s judgment as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the contents and the import of Exhibit-1 has not been considered by the learned trial court. However, the consideration of Exhibit-1 by the learned 1st appellate court is in accordance with law. This Court is of the view that the learned 1st appellate court has not erred in law in interpreting Exhibit- 1. Consequently, the substantial question of law No. A is answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. 34. So far as the substantial question of law No. B is concerned, this Court is of the view that the learned 1st appellate court has rightly held that Exhbibit-1 could be a deed of gift and has rightly held that the said document is not a memorandum of family arrangement. Upon going through Exhibit-1 as held above, this Court is also of the view that the same is not recording any previous family arrangement already taken place, rather the document is itself seeking to extinguishing right, title and interest over the property of Surya Narayan Bid in favour of Kamla Kant Bid and accordingly the substantial question of law No. B is decided answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. 35. So far as the substantial question of law No. C is concerned, this Court finds that the learned 1st appellate court has recorded that the defendants were in possession of the suit property since 1962 and there was no proof of tenancy with respect to the suit property. The learned counsel for the appellants has not pointed out any material to show that the finding of the learned 1st appellate court that the defendants were not tenants but were the owners of the suit property suffered from any misreading of materials on record or suffered from 2025:JHHC:25859 14 any perversity. This Court finds that the learned 1st appellate court has considered the materials on record and recorded a finding that the defendants were occupying the suit property as owners and not as tenants. Consequently, the substantial question of law No.C is answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. 36. So far as the substantial question of law No.D is concerned, there is no doubt that the defendants are the strangers to the family and were in possession of specified portion of the property. As per section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, there is no legal impediment in transfer of property by one of the co-owners with respect to his share or interest over the property and the buyer has got a right to enforce a partition. This Court is of the considered view that merely because one of the co-owners of the property has transferred a portion of the suit property to the defendants, it cannot be said that the defendants did not acquire any right, title and interest over the suit property to the extent of the share of his vendor. This is over and above the fact that the sale deeds were never challenged by the plaintiffs in the suit. Consequently, the substantial question of law No.D is answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondents 37. So far as the substantial question of law No.E is concerned, P.W-1 is Santosh Kumar Bid s/o Gauri Prasad Bid and Gauri Prasad Bid son of Surya Narayan Bid (the original owner of the suit property) is one of the vendors of portion of the suit property to the defendants. This Court finds that merely because P.W-1 has stated that Gauri Prasad Bid had not executed the registered sale deed, the same by itself is not fatal to the case of the defendants. The learned 1st appellate court has considered all the materials on record to come to definite findings to reverse the findings of the learned trial court. He has supported the case of the plaintiffs by stating that his grandfather gave the suit land and the house standing thereon to his uncle Kamla Kant Bid in family partition way back in the year 1934 and in the partition his father Gauri Bid did not get anything. However, he has not been able to give any reason for non-allocation of any share to his father 2025:JHHC:25859 15 and also admitted that Lagan Bid son of another uncle Banmali Bid was still residing in a portion over the suit property. This Court finds that the so-called family settlement (Exhibit-1) has been held to be not admissible in evidence. It has also been held that it is not a nature of family settlement or memorandum of family settlement rather it appeared to be a gift to Kamla Kant Bid creating title in his favour but was unregistered and cannot be relied upon. On the other hand, the defendants were claiming the property through registered sale deed executed by Gauri Prasad Bid (father of P.W-1) in favour of the defendants. 38. The discussion of the oral evidence of the plaintiffs has been made in paragraph 11 of the appellate court’s judgment which reveals that some of the plaintiffs witnesses were treating the Exhibit-1 as family settlement and another P.W. 5 claimed that it was a will and the learned 1st appellate court recorded that the plaintiffs himself did not know as to what is the nature of the alleged transaction made by Surya Narain Bid. Exhibit-1 in the plaint was termed as family arrangement, in the evidence termed as family partition and the plaintiffs witness during cross examination stated that the deed is a will. The learned 1st appellate court after considering the materials on record, was of the view that the Exhibit-1 was in the nature of gift and being unregistered does not confer any right, title and interest upon the plaintiffs and it was held to be doubtful and could not be relied upon. The learned 1st appellate court has also recorded that there were conflicting statements of the witnesses of the plaintiffs on the question of alleged induction of the defendants in the suit premises and the contradictions have been recorded in paragraph 21 of the learned appellate court’s judgment. The defendants clearly denied that they were inducted as a tenant in a portion of the property by Kamla Kant Bid rather, they were claiming their own right, title and interest by virtue of registered sale deeds executed in their favour by Gauri Prasad Bid, Badal Bid and Ajit Bid. Badal Bid and Ajit Bid were the sons of Guhiram Bid and grandsons of Surya Narain Bid- the original owner of the property. 2025:JHHC:25859 16 39. This Court is of the considered view that merely because Santosh Kumar Bid had supported the case of the plaintiffs and stated that the suit property was given to Kamla Kant Bid in family partition and not to his father, his evidence cannot be seen in isolation. This Court is of the considered view that aforesaid evidence of Santosh Kumar Bid is of no consequence once the document of family arrangement/family partition/will has been held to have created no title in favour of Kamla Kant Bid. The plaintiffs were descendants of Kamla Kant Bid. Exhibit-A is the sale deed executed by Gouri Prasad Bid in favour of Hari Narayan Bid, Bibhuti Bhushan Bid, Gobardhan Bid and Bishwa Nath Bid and Exhibit-A/1 is the sale deed executed by Badal Chandra Bid and others in favour of Gobardhan Bid and the defendants were Hari Narayan Bid, Bibhuti Bhushan Bid, Gobardhan Bid and Bishwa Nath Bid all sons of Durga Charan Bid. These exhibits along with other materials on record have been duly considered while coming to the findings by the learned 1st appellate court. The evidence of Santosh Kumar Bid (P.W-1) cannot be seen in isolation and has been duly considered. There is no perversity in appreciating the evidence of P.W-1. The substantial question of law no. E is accordingly decided against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. 40. The substantial questions of law are answered as follows: - I. The substantial question of law no. A- The learned 1st appellate court has not erred in law in interpreting Ext.1. II. The substantial question of law no. B- The learned 1st appellate court has not erred in law in holding that Ext.1 was a deed of gift rather than memorandum of family arrangement. III. The substantial question of law no. C- The learned 1st appellate court has not erred in law in holding that the defendants/respondents are residing in the suit premises as owner. IV. The substantial question of law No. D- In view of the findings of the learned court below regarding jointness of the property the defendants who are strangers to the family have acquired a title 2025:JHHC:25859 17 over undivided portion of the joint property. Merely because one of the co-owners of the property has transferred a portion of the suit property to the defendants, it cannot be said that the defendants did not acquire any right, title and interest over the suit property to the extent of the share of his vendor. V. The substantial question of law no. E- The learned 1st appellate court has not committed any illegality in ultimately dismissing the suit in-spite of the evidence of Santosh Kumar Bid (P.W-1) son of Late Gauri Prasad Bid. 41. In view of the aforesaid answers to the substantial questions of law, this Court finds no merit in this second appeal, which accordingly dismissed. 42. Pending I.A., if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 43. Let the records be sent back to the concerned courts. 44. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned courts through “Fax/e-mail”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated 28.08.2025 Rakesh/-