2025:JHHC:32817 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 588 of 2004 1. Subhash Devi, wife of Late Bageshwar Pandey 2. Santosh Pandey, S/o Kailash Pandey, Resident of Hundadih, P. O. Pachambha, District – Giridih. 3. Manoranjan Pandey, Son of Bageshwar Pandey 4. Dil Ranjan Pandey 5. Prafulit Pandey Both son of Late Bageshwar Pandey 6. Smt. Padma Pandey @ Padmawati Pandey, Wife of Sajjan Pandey. 7. Nareshwar Pandey, son of Late Bageshwar Pandey (Deleted and substituted vide order dated 05.08.2025) 7(a). Damyanti Pandey, wife of Late Nareshwar Pandey 7(b). Santosh Pandey, son of Late Nareshwar Pandey 7(c). Padma Pandey, wife of Sajjan Pandey All residents of Manikpur, P. O. Manoharpur, P. S. Jasidih, District- Deoghar. 8. Subham Pandey, Minor son of late Sajjan Pandey, represented through is his mother and natural guardian, Padma Devi. residents of Manikpur, P. O. & P. S. Jasidih, District- Deoghar. 9. Santosh Pandey, Son of Nareshwar Pandey, Residents of Manikpur, P. O. Jasidih, District- Deoghar. …. Plaintiffs/ Respondents/ Appellants -Versus- 1. Dakshineshwar Pandey, adopted son of Kenu Pandey 2. Pintu Pandey 3. Sintu Pandey Both sons of Dakshineshwar Pandey All residents of Village: Manikpur, P. S. Jasidih, P. O. Manoharpur, District- Deoghar. …. Defendants/ Appellants/ Respondents 4.Nirmala Devi, Wife of Devendra Mishra (Deleted and substituted vide order dated 06.07.2022) 4(a). Om Prakash Misra, Son of Devindra Nath Mishra 4(b). Manoj Mishra, Son of Devindra Nath Mishra 4(c). Sarojani Devi, Daughter of Devindra Nath Mishra, wife of Diwakar Pandey 4(d). Bachchu Devi, Daughter of Devindra Nath Mishra, wife of Vivek Pandey. 4(e). Minu Kumari, Daughter of Devindra Nath Mishra 4(f). Minakshi Kumari, Daughter of Devindra Nath Mishra 2025:JHHC:32817 2 All residents of Mouza Balia Patra, P. O. Rolagram, P. S. Maheshpur, District- Dumka. 5. Pramila Devi, Wife of Surendra Pandey and daughter of Late Bageshwar Pandey, R.O.- Mouza, Bhikhadih, P. O. – Sangrampur, P. S.- Belhar, District- Munger. 6. Manoj Pandey, Son of Kailash Pandey, Resident of Hundadih, P. O. Pachhamba, District- Giridih 7. Purni Devi 8. Basanti Devi (Deleted and substituted vide order dated 06.07.2022) 8(a). Jaishankar Pandey 8(b). Ashok Pandey Both son of Late Badri Nath Padey and Baanti Devi, resident of Koderma, P. O. Koderma, District- Koderma. 9. Anirudh Pandey 10. Nageshwar Pandey (Deleted and substituted vide order dated 10.09.2025) 10(i). Bina Devi, wife of Late Nageshwar Pandey, resident of Village- Manikpur, P. O. Madhopur, P.S. Jasidih, District- Deoghar. 10(b). Binay Prandey 10(c). Sanjay Pandey 10(d). Rajiv Kumar Pandey 10(e). Ritesh Pandey All sons of Late Nageshwar Pandey, resident of Village- Manikpur, P. O. Madhopur, P.S. Jasidih, District- Deoghar. 10(f). Uma Devi, wife of Ganesh Pandey and daughter of Late Nageshwar Pandey, resident of Village-Patharda, P. O. & P.S.Patherda, District- Deoghar 10(g). Shyama Devi, wife of Rajendra Pandey, daughter of Late Nageshwar Pandey, resident of Village-Chandrakoh, P. O. & P.S.Kubri, District- Giridih 10(h). Ranjana Pandey, wife of Vijay Pandey, daughter of Late Nageshwar Pandey, resident of Village-Bangarkala, P. O.- Birni, P.S.- Birni, District- Giridih. ….. Defendant 2nd party/ Respondents/Respondents -- CORAM:HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate : Mr. Abdul Wahab, Advocate : Mr. Anurag Chandra, Advocate For the Resp. (1,2,3) : Mr. Jai Prakash Pandey, Advocate For the Resp. No. 10 : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, Advocate 2025:JHHC:32817 3 : Mr. Akash Kumar Dubey, Advocate --- Reserved on 17.09.2025 Pronounced on 29.10.2025 This second appeal has been filed against the judgement dated 09.09.2004 (decree signed on 22.09.2004) passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. III, Deoghar whereby Title Appeal No. 23 of 2001 has been allowed. The trial court judgement is dated 08.10.2001 (decree signed on 27.11.2001) passed by learned Sub Judge-III, Deoghar in Title Suit No. 284 of 1997. The Title Suit was decreed. The defendant nos. 1,2,3 who were the contesting defendants were the appellants before the 1st Appellate Court. The 1st Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and consequently the plaintiffs are the appellants before this court. 2. This appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 22.12.2006 on the following substantial question of law: - “1) Whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing the finding of the trial Court on the ground that family settlement having been entered into in 1980 after the death of Bhuka Devi cannot be given effect to?” 3. The Title Suit was filed for the following reliefs: - (a) That a decree be passed declaring, that the plaintiffs have valid right, title and interest in the suit-lands described in Schedule-B of the plaint to the extent of their ½ interest in the same along with their joint right to keep in occupation and enjoyment of house Plot No. 594 and Tank Plot No. 548 and for confirmation of their such possession and in the event of their dispossession during pendency of the suit, for recovery of possession as well. (b) A decree directing partition of the suit-land described in Schedule- “B” of the plaint partitioning the ½ share of the plaintiffs in the same, and for carving out separate block of the said half share of the plaintiffs in the suit- lands through an Amin Commissioner appointed by the Court, and for delivery of possession of the same through Court. (c) A decree declaring that the Defendant no. 1 has no right, title and interest in the suit-lands described in Schedule- “B” of the plaint. 2025:JHHC:32817 4 (d) A decree declaring that the order passed by the Revenue Officer, that is, order dated 27.01.1993 of Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Deoghar in the Revenue Misc. Case No. 13 of 1993 and the order dated 22.04.1993, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar in Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 131 of 1993 are void and without jurisdiction. (e) Cost of the suit. (f) Any other relief or reliefs which the plaintiffs are entitled to under the law. 4. Schedule-A property was Jamabandi No. 67 of village Manikpur, total area 21.39 acres and Schedule-B property was claimed by the plaintiffs to have been allocated to the share of the plaintiff no.1 Bageshwar Pandey and his full brother Maheshwar Pandey (defendant no. 4) out of the Schedule A property by virtue of registered family arrangement dated 05.12.1980. Accordingly, the plaintiffs claimed the entire schedule-B property based on the registered family arrangement dated 05.12.1980 to the exclusion of the defendant no.1. The trial court’s judgment 5. The suit was filed by Bageshwar Pandey, son of Bhubneshwar Pandey and Nareshwar Pandey, Manoranjan Pandey, Dilranjan Pandey, Prafull Pandey and Sajjan Pandey, all sons of Bageshwar Pandey. The defendant no. 1 was Dakshineshwar pandey, the adopted son of Bhukha Devi wife of Kenu Pandey and defendant nos. 2 and 3 were sons of Dakshineshwar Pandey. The proforma defendants were Maheshwar Pandey s/o Bhubaneshwar Pandey and his two sons. 6. As per the case of the plaintiffs, family tree was given in paragraph 1 of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, Pairu Pandey was the common ancestor of Horil Pandey and Baichu Pandey. The branches of Horil Pandey were as follows: - Choba Pandey was the son of Horil Pandey. Choba Pandey had two sons namely Sri Ram Pandey who dies issueless and Durga Pandey. Durga Pandey had one son namely Kenu Pandey who was married to Bhukha Devi and Bhukha Devi was the recorded tenant of the Schedule-A property situated at village Manikpur. 2025:JHHC:32817 5 The branches of Baichu Pandey were as follows:- Bhikhu Pandey was son of Baichu Pandey. Shivlal Pandey was son of Bhikhu Pandey. Bhubneshwar Pandey was son of Shivlal Pandey. Bhubaneshwar Pandey had two sons namely Maheshwar Pandey (defendant no. 4) and Bageshwar Pandey (plaintiff no.1) . Further Maheshwar Pandey had three sons Nageshwar Pandey, Dakshineshwar Pandey and Aniruddh Pandey. Dakshineshwar Pandey had two sons Pintu Pandey and Sintu Pandey. Maheshwar Pandey and his descendants were made defendants in the suit. Bageshwar Pandey, son of Bhubaneshwar Pandey had four sons namely Nareshwar Pandey, Manoranjan Pandey, Dilranjan Pandey and Prafulla Pandey and Nareshwar Pandey had two sons namely Sajjan Pandey and Santosh Pandey. Bageshwar Pandey and his descendants were the plaintiffs. 7. It was the case of the plaintiffs that Kenu Pandey, in the branch of Horil Pandey, died issueless leaving behind his widow Bhukka Devi who had no issue; in order to maintain Bhukka Devi, Bhubneshwar Pandey, father of the plaintiff (Bageshwar Pandey) , in the branch of Baichu Pandey came down to village Manikpur and settled there with Bhukha Devi and started cultivating her property. According to the plaintiffs, since Bhukha Devi died issueless, therefore Bhubneshwar Pandey was the next reversioner of late Kenu Pandey and Bhubneshwar Pandey resided with Bhukha Devi as he was likely to inherit the property upon demise of Bhukha Devi. Bhubneshwar Pandey came in exclusive management and possession of property of Bhukha devi mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint. Bhubneshwar Pandey paid rent in his name and his name was also entered and in the circle office, the suit property stood recorded in the name of Bhukha Devi and Bhubneshwar Pandey. Bhubneshwar Pandey died in the year 1960 and Bhukha devi died in the year 1965 as per the plaint. On demise of Bhubneshwar Pandey, his sons Bageshwar Pandey and Maheshwar Pandey continued in exclusive possession of the suit property. Consequently, the plaintiffs claimed valid right, title and interest over the suit property along with defendant Maheshwar Pandey and his children. 2025:JHHC:32817 6 8. It was further case of the plaintiffs that upon coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Bageshwar Pandey and Maheshwar Pandey were alarmed and in order to get their title over the suit property which stood recorded in the name of Bhukha devi, they decided to give Dakshineshwar Pandey (defendant no.1) , whose biological father was Maheshwar Pandey, in adoption to Bhukha Devi. Maheshwar Pandey and his wife gave their son Dakshineshwar Pandey in adoption to Bhukha Devi on 20.07.1964 and the deed of adoption was also executed and registered vide Adoption Deed No. 200 dated 22.09.1964. The said adoption deed was challenged by gotia of the parties in Title Suit No. 41 of 1965/10 of 1965 and the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 29.06.1968 and consequently the adoption of defendant Dakshineshwar Pandey was upheld. It was asserted that the plaintiff Bageshwar Pandey and his brother proforma defendant Maheshwar Pandey continued in possession of the suit property. 9. It was further case that the two brothers namely Maheshwar Pandey and Bageshwar Pandey were joint and had cordial relationship. The plaintiff Bageshwar Pandey and Maheshwar Pandey decided to enter into a family arrangement and Maheshwar Pandey insisted to involve the defendant Dakshineshwar Pandey as well in the family arrangement, and a family arrangement was entered into amongst Dakshineshwar Pandey as 1st Party and Maheshwar Pandey and Bageshwar Pandey as 2nd party. In the family arrangement, the Dakshineshwar Pandey got 6 acres 4 decimal of land out of the suit property and Maheshwar Pandey and Bageshwar Pandey jointly got 13 acres 93 decimal of land out of suit property and under the said family arrangement, the house bearing plot no. 594 and tank plot no. 548 were kept in joint amongst them. It is the property which has been allocated to Maheshwar Pandey and Bageshwar Pandey by way of family arrangement, total 13 acres 93 decimal of land which is the schedule-B property of the present case. The family arrangement was also registered as deed of family settlement no. 3328 of 1980 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar. As per family settlement, the parties started making payment of rent to the State. 2025:JHHC:32817 7 10. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the family settlement dated 5.12.1980 was fully implemented and acted upon. However, the defendant Dakshineshwar Pandey, in the collusion with his father Maheshwar Pandey, developed dishonest intention to claim the entire suit property. Consequently, certain proceedings were initiated including one Misc. Case No. 13 of 1992-93 and vide order dated 27.01.1993 there was a direction to remove the name of Bhubneshwar Pandey from Register-II. The appeal against such order was also dismissed vide order dated 22.04.1993. The suit was filed. 11. The plaintiff- Bageshwar Pandey [son of Bhubneshwar Pandey] also claimed adverse possession with respect to the property which was originally recorded in the name of Bhukha Devi. It was also asserted that defendant no. 1 [Dakshineshwar Pandey] had nothing to inherit by virtue of the adoption deed in the suit property as Bhubneshwar Pandey, by virtue of long possession, had perfected his title over the property. It was asserted that the family settlement dated 05.12.1980 is binding upon the parties and therefore the suit was fit to be decreed in view of the family settlement dated 05.12.1980. 12. The suit was contested by the defendant nos. 1 to 3 who clearly denied the genealogy in as much as they stated that Pairu Pandey was not the common ancestor and Horilal Pandey and Bechu Pandey were not the descendants from the common ancestor, Pairu Pandey, and they were of different branches. It was also asserted that genealogical table of Baichu Pandey and Horil Pandey was given and confirmed in Title Suit No. 41 of 1965 and therefore it could not be challenged. It was asserted that ancestors of Bhukha devi had no concern with the property of Nawadih. Similarly, the ancestors of plaintiffs had no concerned with the property of Manikpur at Jasidih. Horilal Pandey and Bechu Pandey were from different branches, there was no question of partition of property between Horil Pandey and Baichu Pandey. It was asserted that Bhukha devi was wife of Kenu Pandey and she was the recorded tenant. Kenu Pandey died long back and left behind one son Babulal Pandey and widow Bihu Pandey. Babulal Pandey was recorded as the sole owner of Jamabandi No. 30 and after death of Babulal Pandey his mother was his legal heir and successor and she came in exclusive 2025:JHHC:32817 8 possession of the suit property at Manikpur. Bhukha devi never requested Bhubneshwar Pandey [ father of the plaintiff no. 1] to help her in cultivating and managing other affairs of the property. It was false to say that Bhubneshwar Pandey started possessing and cultivating the suit property. It was also false to say that Bhunebneshwar Pandey was reversioner of Kenu Pandey. Bhukha devi died in the year 1965 leaving behind her adopted son Dakshineshwar Pandey, the defendant no. 1 who became the absolute owner of the suit property after the death of Bhukha Devi. It was false to say that Bageshwar Pandey and Maheshwar Pandey jointly possessed the suit property. It was also asserted that when the defendant came to know about the mutation of entry in the name of Bhubneshwar Pandey in Register-II, a petition was filed for deletion of his name which was allowed in Revision Misc. Case No. 13 of 1992-93 and the name of Bhubneshwar Pandey was removed against which the appeal was also dismissed and Bhubneshwar Pandey never possessed the property, rather Bhukha devi was the exclusive owner and possessed the entire property. It was the case that Bhubneshwar Pandey and Bageshwar Pandey were not the family members of Bhukha devi. It was asserted that the family arrangement dated 05.12.1980 with Dakshineshwar Pandey and partition of the land as per family arrangement and giving share to Dakshineshwar Pandey was illegal, void and was asserted to be in contravention of Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (supplementary provisions) Act and it was asserted that the family arrangement did not confer any right, title and interest on the plaintiffs and other defendants. It was also asserted that on the basis of family arrangement, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right, title and interest over the suit property. 13. Following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court which are as under: - “ (I) Is the suit, as framed maintainable? (II) Has the plaintiffs got valid cause of action for bringing the suit? 2025:JHHC:32817 9 (III) Had Bhubneshwar Pandey, being reversioner of Kenu Pandey, settle in mouja Manikpur on the request of Bhuka Devi to look after the suit land and properties? (IV) Whether Bhubaneswar Pandey and his sons have been possessed the suit property as Ijamal sampati since the time of settling in Mauja Manikpur? (V) whether the adoption deed made by Bhukha Devi and its execution was done on the wrong advice of Bhuvaneshwar Pandey's sons for the protection of the property? (VI) Was there any family arrangement on 05.12.80 between the parties? (VII) Is family arrangement letter No. 3328/1980 binding on both the parties? (VIII) Whether both the parties came in possession of the lands as per family arrangement dated 05.12.1980 and are taking possession of the land accordingly? (IX) Had Plaintiffs and his ancestors acquired valid right, title and interest over the suit property before 1949? (X) Is the plaintiff entitled to get the relief sought for?” 14. The Trial court took up issue no. 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 together and decided the aforesaid issues in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. So far as issue no. (5) is concerned, it was held that adoption deed is of the year 1964 and the family settlement is dated 05.12.1980 and held that the adoption deed was made under wrong advice as in the family settlement of 1980, there is signature of Dakshineshwar Pandey along with other parties to the family settlement. The court was of the view that under such circumstances it would not be proper to hold that the family settlement was not in accordance with law. With respect to the issue no. (3) it was held that the father of the plaintiff namely Bhubneshwar Pandey had been residing in Manikpur with Bhukha Devi since prior to 1949 and had acquired right title and interest over the property. With respect to issue 2025:JHHC:32817 10 no. 1,2, and 10 the learned trial court held that the suit was maintainable and plaintiff was entitled to the decree. The court recorded that on the basis of the registered family settlement dated 05.12.1980 fresh proceeding be initiated to enter the name of the plaintiff in the Register- II. The learned Court decreed the suit and accordingly decree was prepared. Findings of 1st appellate court. 15. So far as the learned 1st Appellate Court is concerned, no separate point for determination were framed but all the issues were taken up as were framed by the learned trial court. 16. The learned 1st Appellate Court recorded findings with respect to issue no. 3,4,6,7, and 8 from paragraph 6 onwards and discussed the documentary evidences on record in paragraph 12 as under: - “12. Besides oral evidence defendant has also filed following documents in support of the case. Ext.B. is the certified copy of order dated 05.03.73 of Title Appeal No.60 of 1968. It appears from the perusal of Ext. B, the said appeal was dismissed for default. Ext B/2 is the Photo-state copy of order-sheet of mutation case No.80 of 1966-67 in which Dakshineshwar Pandey was petitioner, had filed the said case before C.O., Deoghar for correction and removal of the name of Bhubaneswar from Register 2 regarding Jamabandi No.67. Ext B/2 certified copy of order sheet dated 27.01.93 of Rev. Misc. case No.13 of 92-93, in the court of Sub-divisional officer. Deoghar. Dakshineshwar Pandey Vrs. Maheshwar Pandey and other. It is clear from Ext. B/2 that name of Bhubneshwar Pandey was wrongly recorded in registered 2, and an order was passed to remove his name from register 2 and name of Dakshineshwar Pandey would continue in register 2 until the acceptance of family settlement for mutation, further order was passed directing C.O.. Deoghar to institute a case against the Karamchari who recommended the name of Bhubneshwar Pandey for the entry in Register-2. Ext.B/3 certified copy of order-sheet date 22.4.93 of Rev. Misc. case No. 131/92-93, Bageshwar Pandey appellant Vrs. Dakshineshwar Pandey and other in the court of D.C., Deoghar. It is clear from Ext B/3 that D.C., Deoghar has confirmed the order of L.R.D.C., Deoghar dated 27.01.93 of Rev. Misc. Case No.13/92-93. Ext C. is certified copy of judgement of T.S. No. 41/65 / 10/68 dated 29.06.68. In the court of 3rd Addl. Subordinate Judge. Deoghar. It appears from the perusal of Ext. C. That Horil Pandey and Bechu Pandey were not full brothers not even relation. (para 11 2025:JHHC:32817 11 of Ext-C). This goes to falsify the pleading of the plaintiff that Horil Pandey and Bechu Pandey are full brothers. It is further clear from para 33 of Ext. C. The learned Sub-Judge, Deoghar held that Bhuka Devi who alone was entitled to the suit lands till her death and after her death Kali Pandey (Dakshinshwar Pandey Defendant No.1) is alone entitled to the suit lands to which the plaintiff or other defendants have no title. Assertion of the Plaintiff 'appellant in the plaint that Bhubneshwar Pandey and his son were in exclusive possession of the suit property of Bhukha Devi is false and baseless. Ext.D C.C. of decree sheet of T.S. No. 41 of 1965 / 10 of 1968. It appears from Ext.D that Maheshwar Pandey and Bageshwar Pandey (Plaintiff-respondent) were defendant No.6 and 7 respectively. Ext. E Parcha of Jamabadi No.30 of mouja Manikpur issued in the name of Bhuka. Devi w/o Kenu pandey. Ext F Parcha of Jamabandi No.11 of mouja Manikpur issued in the name of Babulal Pandey s/o Kenu Pandey. Ext F shows that Babulal Pandey was son of Kenu Pandey. Ext G Substituted Photo state copy of Parcha of Jamababdi No.11 of mouja Manikpur, issued in the name of chowa Pandey.” 17. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that exhibit-C was the certified copy of the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 41 of 65/10 of 68 dated 29.06.1968 and it appears from exhibit-C that Horil Pandey and Bechu Pandey were not full brothers and were not even relation and held that this falsified the pleading of the plaintiff that Horil Pandey and Bechu Pandy were full brothers. The learned 1st Appellate Court also recorded that the assertion of the plaintiff in the plaint that Bhubneshwar Pandey and his sons were in exclusive possession of the suit property of Bhukha Devi was also false and baseless. The learned court recorded that Baichu Pandey had no concern with the family of Horil Pandey. The learned 1st appellate court also held that the assertion of the Plaintiffs in the plaint that Bhubneshwar Pandey and his son were in exclusive possession of the suit property of Bhukha Devi was also false and baseless. The learned 1st appellate court ultimately was of the view that the learned trial court erred in deciding issue nos. 3,4,6,7 and 8 in favour of the plaintiffs and was of the view that the defendants had failed to prove his right, title and interest over the suit property. 2025:JHHC:32817 12 While deciding issue no. (5), the learned 1st appellate court held as under: - “14. It is clear from the pleading and evidence that Bhuka Devi adopted Dakshineshwar Pandey (defendant No.1) in the year 1964. The learned Sub-Judge in title suit No.41/65 / 10/68 (Ext.C) held that Bhuka Devi adopted Kali Pandey.(Dakshineshwar Pandey). Plaintiff-respondent was defendant No.7 in the said suit, therefore, he cannot deny the adoption of Dakshineshwar Pandey by Bhuka Devi. The learned lower court has decided issue No.5 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent on the ground that deed of adoption has been executed in the year 1964 and family arrangement has been registered on 05.12.80, both parties have put their signatures on the family arrangement. Therefore, the genuineness of the said family settlement cannot be denied, so the adoption of Dakshineshwar Pandey by Bhuka Devi was illegal. It is clear that Dakshineshwar Pandey was adopted in the year 1964 and family arrangement was executed in 1980 after sixteen years of adoption, the said Ext.6, is fraudulently procured with a view to grab the suit properties. In view of the pleading, evidence and finding of the Sub-Judge in T.S.No. 41/65 (Ext.C) that Dakshineshwar Pandey is the adopted son of Bhuka Devi. The learned court below erred in deciding issue No.5 in favour of the plaintiff - respondent and against the appellant - defendant. Therefore, this issue is decided against the plaintiff- respondent and in favour of the defendant - appellant.” Issue no. 9 was decided by the learned 1st appellate court vide para 15 which is quoted as under: - “15. Considering the evidence and documents of both the sides that Bhubneshwar Pandey, father of the plaintiff - respondent was no reversioner of Kinu Pandey and Bhuka Devi. So Bhubneshwar Pandey was not residing with Bhuka Devi in Manikpur and had not acquired right, title and interest over suit properties. Hence issue No.9 goes against the plaintiff - respondent and in favour of the Defendant - appellant.” Issue no. 1, 2 and 10 were decided by the learned 1st appellate court vide para 16 which are quoted as under: - “16. These three issues are being taken together for consideration as they are co-related. On the basis of the above discussions, opinions and findings that the plaintiff - respondent has no cause of action and the suit is not 2025:JHHC:32817 13 maintainable as framed. The plaintiff - respondent is not entitled to get reliefs. In view of the aforesaid findings these three issues are also decided against the plaintiff - respondent and in favour of the defendant appellant. In view of the aforesaid evidence, opinions and findings it is apparent that the learned court below has committed error deciding judgement and decree in favour of the plaintiff -respondent. Therefore, the impugned Judgement and decree of the learned lower court below is set aside, appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. Cost throughout is allowed to the defendant -appellant.” 18. The learned 1st appellate court ultimately set aside the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court after holding that Horil Pandey and Baichu Pandey had no connection whatsoever. There is also a clear finding that Maheshwar Pandey was the biological father of Dakchhineshwar Pandey and Maheshwar Pandey was the descendant of Baichu Pandey and Dakshineshwar Pandey was given in adoption to Bhukha Devi and Bhukha Devi belonged to the family of Horil Pandey. It was held that it was clear that Dakshineshwar Pandey was adopted in the year 1964 and family arrangement was executed in 1980 after sixteen years of adoption, the said Ext.6 (family settlement), is fraudulently procured with a view to grab the suit properties. Submission on behalf of the appellants: - 19. While explaining the genealogy, the learned counsel for the appellants (plaintiffs) has submitted that Pairu Pandey was the common ancestor. He had two sons, Horil Pandey and Bechu Pandey. There was a partition between Horil Pandey and Bechu Pandey and the property in Manikpur was allotted to Horil Pandey and property of Nawadih was allotted to Bechu Pandey. The suit property is located in Manikpur, Jasidih. He has submitted that Bhiko Pandey was the son of Bechu Pandey, Shivlal Pandey was son of Bhiko Pandey, and Bhubneshwar Pandey was son of Shivlal Pandey. Maheshwar Pandey was son of Bhubneshwar Pandey, and Dakchineshwar Pandey was the biological son of Maheshwar Pandey. 2025:JHHC:32817 14 20. The further case of the appellants is that Kenu Pandey was the descendant of Horil Pandey; his wife was Bhuka Devi, who adopted Dakchineshwar Pandey on 22.09.1964. Bhuka Devi died on 01.01.1965. He has also submitted that a registered partition deed dated 05.12.1980 was entered into between Dakchineshwar Pandey on one hand and Maheshwar Pandey and Bageshwar Pandey, both sons of Bhubneshwar Pandey, on the other hand. Meaning thereby that the family arrangement was made between the branch of Horil Pandey and Bechu Pandey. Although as per the case of the plaintiffs, Horil Pandey and Bechu Pandey were already separated and Horil Pandey got the property in Manikpur and Bechu Pandey got the property in Nawadih. The learned counsel submits that by virtue of the registered family arrangement dated 05.12.1980 which dealt with the properties of Manikpur, Jasidih, there was a reunion between the branches of Horil Pandey and Bechu Pandey. The plaintiff is the son of Bhubneshwar Pandey and is the descendants of Baichu Pandey. 21. Dakshineshwar Pandey is defendant no. 1 in the present case whose biological father belongs to the branch of Baichu Pandey and Bhukha Devi who belongs to the branch of Horil Pandey had adopted Dakshineshwar Pandey. The descendants of the branch of Baichu Pandey claimed half share of the property which belong to the branch of Horil Pandey on the basis of registered family arrangement of 1980. The finding of the learned 1st Appellate court is that Horil Pandey and Baichu Pandey did not belong to the same family and both were not the sons of Pairu Pandey and different genealogy has been given. 22. The learned counsel for the appellants while referring to the substantial question of law has submitted that the family settlement entered in the year 1980 was a registered document and at no point of time, the same was challenged and accordingly the family settlement was binding upon the parties. He has relied upon the judgment reported in 2010 AIR SC 211 (Abdul Rahim versus Sk. Abdul Jabbar), and has referred to paragraph 19 to submit that a registered documents being void or voidable has to be necessarily challenged within three years from the date of knowledge. Admittedly the defendants did not challenge the registered family arrangement of the 1980 by filing any 2025:JHHC:32817 15 separate suit or any counter claim in the suit, although they had questioned the family arrangement in the written statement. The learned counsel submits that unless the family arrangement of the year 1980 is set aside, the same continues to be binding and as of now, challenge to family settlement has become barred by limitation. He submits that under such circumstances, the suit based on family settlement was maintainable and therefore the plaintiffs had rightly filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest including half share in the suit property (entire schedule-B) which was allocated to them in the family settlement of the year 1980. Arguments of the respondent No. 10. 23. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 10 has submitted that respondent no. 10 is the descendant of Baichu Pandey and accordingly supports the case of the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs are also descendants of Baichu Pandey. He submits that Dakshineshwar Pandey has also accepted the family settlement as he was the 1st party in the family settlement and Bageshwar Pandey along with Maheshwar Pandey was 2nd party in the family settlement. Arguments of the respondents (contesting defendants) 24. The learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the prayer has submitted that the entire case of the plaintiffs was demolished in view of the fact that there was already a finding in the earlier suit of the year 1965 that Horil Pandey had nothing to do with Baichu Pandey and they were not related to each other . He has also submitted that the deed of adoption of Bhukha Devi whereby she adopted Dakshineshwar Pandey biological son of Maheshwar Pandey was held to be valid in the earlier title suit and therefore Dakshineshwar Pandey ceased to have any relationship with his biological father namely Maheshwar pandey. He has also submitted that by virtue of adoption, Dakshineshwar Pandey became the descendant of Horil pandey as husband of Bhukha Devi namely Kenu Pandey was a descendant of Horil Pandey. The learned counsel has submitted that the learned 1st appellate court has rightly passed the impugned judgment. 25. The learned counsel has submitted that since Horil Pandey and Baichu pandey had no biological relationship with each other, therefore 2025:JHHC:32817 16 the family settlement amounts to transfer of property which belonged to the branch of Horil Pandey to Baichu Pandey and such transfer of property is hit by the provision of Section 20 and 69 of Santhal Paragana Tenancy (supplementary provisions) Act as the properties in Santhal Pargana are non- transferable in nature. He has submitted that since the properties are non-transferable in Santhal Pargana, the design to transfer the property by virtue of the registered family settlement of the year 1980 makes the family settlement void ab initio and against the statutory provisions of Santhal Paragana Tenancy (supplementary provisions) Act. The learned counsel has submitted that the learned 1st appellate court has rightly taken note of Section 20 and Section 69 of the Santhal Paragana Tenancy (supplementary provisions) Act to reject the plea of the plaintiffs based on the registered family settlement dated 05.12.1980. He has also submitted that once the registered deed is void ab initio and against the statute, the same can be taken care of by the learned courts even if they are not specifically challenged. Rejoinder arguments of the appellants and the respondent no. 10 26. The learned counsel for the appellants and respondent no. 10 have jointly submitted that Section 20 and Section 69 of the Santhal Paragana Tenancy (supplementary provisions) Act does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case in as much as the registered deed of 1980 is not a transfer of property but it is a family arrangement within the family members and all are the co-sharers of the property. He submits that in such circumstances, the argument of the contesting respondents is misplaced. Findings of this Court. Previous Title Suit No. 41 of 1965/10 of 1968 27. Before proceeding to decide the substantial question of law, it would be relevant to refer to the earlier suit being Title Suit No. 41 of 1965/10 of 1968 whereby the registered adoption deed of the year 1964 was also under challenge. 28. Upon perusal of the judgment dated 29.06.1968 passed in Title Suit No. 41 of 1965/10 of 1968 and the decree passed therein, it is apparent that the suit was filed for partition claiming ½ share and also claiming that the deed of adoption of Kali Pandey of the year 1964 was 2025:JHHC:32817 17 null and void. The schedule of the property was in relation to Mouza Manikpur, No. 25, District Santhal Pargana under J.B. No. 167 comprising of the lands mentioned in the Schedule of the plaint. The learned trial court in the said case framed specific issue nos. 5, 6 and 7 which are relevant for the purposes of the present case. Issue Nos. 5, 6 and 7 framed in Title Suit No. 41 of 1965/10 of 1968 are quoted as under: - “5. Whether Hail Pandey and Bachu Pandey were the sons of Pairu Pandey as alleged by the plaintiffs or Haril Pandey was the son of Gour Pandey as alleged by the defendant nos. 6 and 7? 6. Whether the story of the adoption of defendant no. 9 by Bhukhya Debya is correct and if correct whether the same is legal? 7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the partition of the suit lands and if so what would be their share” 29. In paragraph 11 of earlier title suit being Title Suit No. 41 of 1965/10 of 1968, while dealing with the finding with regard to issue no. 5, it has been clearly held that Haril and Bachu were not full brothers and not even relation as alleged by the plaintiffs. Paragraph 11 of the aforesaid case is quoted as under: - “11. In view of my discussions noted above, I hold that Haril and Bachu were not full brothers not even relation as alleged by the plaintiffs” 30. Issue Nos. 6 and 7 of the aforesaid title suit were taken up together and it was held that Bhukha Devi was in possession of the suit lands when the Hindu Succession came into force and therefore, she became the absolute owner of the property. It was also held that Kali Pandey, son of Maheshwar Pandey was validly and legally adopted son of Bhukha Devi and was alone entitled to the suit land after death of Bhukha Devi to which the plaintiffs and other defendants had no title. Paragraph 33 of the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 41 of 1965/10 of 1968 is quoted as under- “33. I have held above that Bhukhya Debya was in possession of the suit lands when the Hindu Succession came into force and therefore she became the absolute owner of this property. Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act lays down as to how the 2025:JHHC:32817 18 property of a female Hindu dying interest shall devolve. According to this Section, the property shall devolve upon the persons mentioned in Section 15 but according to the rules set out in Section 16. In view of these two sections the property shall devolve firstly upon the sons and daughters (including the child of any deceased son or daughter) and the husband. The expression “son” as used in entry (a) has not been defined in the Act but it includes the natural son and a son adopted in accordance with the law relating to adoptions among the Hindus in force at the time of adoption. IN view of the above principles, Kali Pandey who was validly and legally adopted by Bhukhya Debya is an heir of Bhukhya Debya for the purpose of above Sections of the Hindu Succession Act. I, therefore, hold that it was Bhukhya Debya who alone was entitled to the suit lands till her death and after her death defendant Kali Pandey is alone entitled to the suit lands to which the plaintiffs or other defendants have no title. These issues are accordingly answered.” 31. In the said suit, Bageshwar Pandey (plaintiff no. 1 of this suit) was defendant no. 7 and Maheshwar Pandey (the proforma defendant of this suit) was defendant no. 6. Maheshwar Pandey had 3 sons, who were defendant nos. 8, 9 and 10, namely, Nageshwar Pandey, Kali Pandey and Anirudh Pandey, all were minors. The present case. 32. The plaintiffs were Bageshwar Pandey (son of Bhubneshwar Pandey) and his sons. The defendant nos. 1 to 3 were the contesting defendants. The defendant no. 1 was Dakshineshwar Pandey, (the adopted son of Bhukha Devi wife of Kenu Pandey) and defendant nos. 2 and 3 were sons of Dakshineshwar Pandey. The proforma defendants were Maheshwar Pandey (full brother of the plaintiff no. 1) and his two sons. 33. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that one Pairu Pandey was the common ancestor of Horil Pandey and Baichu Pandey; the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants were descendants of Baichu Pandey; the descendant of Horil Pandey was Kenu Pandey husband of Bhukha Devi; Bhukha Devi was the recorded tenant of schedule A property and schedule B property was the part of Schedule A property. Kenu Pandey died issueless and later on Bhukha Devi died in the year 1965. 2025:JHHC:32817 19 34. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that after death of Kenu Pandey (husband of Bhukha Devi), Bhubneshwar Pandey (belonging to the Branch of Baichu Pandey) lived with Bhukha Devi and cultivated the suit land and the name of Bhubneshwar Pandey was also entered along with Bhukha Devi in the register maintained by the Circle Officer. 35. It was further case of the plaintiffs that Maheshwar Pandey (proforma defendant and full brother of plaintiff no. 1) had 3 sons including defendant no. 1 Dakshineshwar Pandey and Bhukha Devi adopted Dakshineshwar Pandey on 20.07.1964 by a registered deed of adoption. The said deed of adoption was challenged by the gotiyas in Title Suit No. 41/1965, but the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 29.06.1968 whereby adoption deed was upheld. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff no. 1 Bageshwar Pandey and his brother proforma defendant Maheshwar Pandey both sons of Bhubneshwar Pandey continued in possession of the suit property. 36. It was the specific case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff no. 1 Bageshwar Pandey (biological uncle of Dakshineshwar Pandey), Maheshwar Pandey (biological father of Dakshineshwar Pandey) and Dakshineshwar Pandey entered into a family arrangement, whereby the plaintiff no. 1 and proforma defendant jointly got 13 acres 93 decimals of land out of the suit property by virtue of registered family arrangement dated 05.12.1980 and they continued in possession of the same. 37. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that Dakshineshwar Pandey in collusion with his biological father Maheshwar Pandey wanted to take away the entire property of Bhukha Devi and therefore instituted a Misc. Case No. 13/92-93 before the Revenue Officer in which a direction was issued vide order dated 27.01.1993 to remove the name of Bhubneshwar Pandey (father of plaintiff no. 1 and proforma defendant) from register-II. The appeal against such order was also dismissed vide order dated 22.04.1993. It was asserted that the registered family settlement dated 05.12.1980 was binding upon the parties and therefore the suit was fit to be decreed. It was asserted that the entire Schedule-B property belonged to the plaintiffs/proforma defendant by virtue of registered family settlement dated 05.12.1980. 2025:JHHC:32817 20 38. The suit was filed for the reliefs as quoted above and the plaintiff- Bageshwar Pandey [son of Bhubneshwar Pandey] also claimed adverse possession with respect to the property which was originally recorded in the name of Bhukha Devi. 39. The contesting defendant nos. 1 to 3 asserted that Horil Pandey and Baichu Pandey did not have common ancestor and they did not belong to the same family and thus, the property belonging to Horel Pandey and his descendant Kenu Pandey (husband of Bhukha Devi) could not devolve upon the legal heirs and successors of Baichu Pandey. It was asserted that since defendant no. 1 Dakshineshwar Pandey was the adopted son of Bhukha Devi, the entire property would devolve upon Dakshineshwar Pandey being the adopted son of Bhukha Devi and accordingly, the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants had nothing to do with the suit property and registered family settlement dated 05.12.1980 has no sanctity in the eyes of law as the contesting defendants did not belong to the family of the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the plaintiffs and the contesting defendants had a common ancestor, namely, Pairu Pandey, but the contesting defendants denied this fact. 40. It was asserted by the contesting defendants that Bhubneshwar Pandey (father of plaintiff no. 1) was not a reversioner of Kenu Pandey, rather Bhukha Devi died in 1965 leaving behind her adopted son Dakshineshwar Pandey (defendant no.1). Thus, the plaintiffs claimed Schedule-B property (a portion of Schedule-A property) by virtue of a registered family settlement dated 05.12.1980 in which Dakshineshwar Pandey (defendant no.1) was also a signatory and was 1st party; AND the defendant no. 1 claimed the entire Schedule-A property, recorded in the name of Bhukha Devi, in the capacity of her legal heir and successor by virtue of registered deed of adoption dated 22.09.1964. 41. The learned trial court was of the view that the family settlement dated 05.12.1980 was binding on defendant no. 1 (Dakshineshwar Pandey) as Dakshineshwar Pandey was also a signatory as the 1st party to the registered family settlement dated 05.12.1980. This finding was 2025:JHHC:32817 21 irrespective of the fact that Bhukha Devi adopted Dakshineshwar Pandey by registered deed of adoption in the year 1964 and she died in the year 1965. 42. The registered deed of adoption of the year 1964, executed by Bhukha Devi adopting Dakshineshwar Pandey, is an admitted fact and it is also an admitted fact that one registered deed of family arrangement amongst Dakshineshwar Pandey, Bageshwar Pandey and Maheshwar Pandey was entered into in the year 1980 whereby Schedule-B property was allocated to the plaintiff no. 1 Bageshwar Pandey and proforma defendant Maheshwar Pandey and both were the sons of Bhubneshwar Pandey. 43. It was also asserted by the plaintiffs that registered deed of adoption of Dakshineshwar Pandey was only for protection of the suit property and the same was upon wrong advice of plaintiff no. 1 and his brother proforma defendant in order to grab the property of Bhukha Devi. 44. The learned trial court recorded that the registered adoption deed was of the year 1964 and the registered family settlement was dated 05.12.1980 and held that the adoption deed was made under wrong advise, as in the family settlement of 1980, there is signature of defendant no. 1 Dakshineshwar Pandey along with other parties and ultimately the learned trial court did not find it proper to hold that the registered family settlement was not in accordance with law and consequently decreed the suit. 45. So far as the learned 1st appellate court is concerned, it took into consideration the fact that the adoption deed of the year 1964 was itself challenged in Title Suit No. 41/1965 which was decided vide judgment dated 29.06.1968 (exhibit-C) and was held to be valid. It was also held vide exhibit-C that Horil [the ancestor of Kenu Pandey (husband of Bhukha Devi)] and Bechu (the ancestor of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants) were not full brothers and they were not even relatives. The learned 1st appellate court also recorded that the plaintiff no. 1 and the proforma defendant were also party as defendant nos. 6 and 7 respectively in the Title suit No. 41/1965. 2025:JHHC:32817 22 46. In the present suit, the learned 1st appellate court outright rejected the plea of the plaintiffs that Horel Pandey and Baichu Pandey were full brothers, and rightly so, as the issue was already settled in the earlier Title Suit No. 41 of 1965/10 of 1968. 47. The learned 1st appellate court further held that Dakshineshwar Pandey, being the adopted son of Bhukha Devi, had the exclusive right, interest and possession with respect to the suit property. The learned 1st appellate court also held that the Dakshineshwar Pandey was adopted in the year 1964. This was also rightly decided as this issue was also already settled in the earlier Title Suit No. 41 of 1965/10 of 1968. 48. The family arrangement was executed in the year 1980, after 16 years of adoption, and the family arrangement of the year 1980 was fraudulently procured with a view to grab the suit property. The learned 1st appellate court ultimately held that the learned trial court erred in deciding issues no. 5. 49. It is important to note that as per the case of the plaintiffs, Horel Pandey and Bechu Pandey were already separated and Horel Pandey got the property in Manikpur and Bechu Pandey got the property in Nawadih. It was argued before the learned courts that by virtue of the registered family arrangement dated 05.12.1980, which dealt with the properties of Manikpur, Jasidih, there was a reunion between the branches of Horil Pandey and Bechu Pandey. However, such plea was ex-facie not sustainable as in the earlier Title Suit No. 41 of 1965/10 of 1968 it was clearly held that Horil Pandey and Bechu Pandey were not full brothers and were not related to each other. 50. This Court also finds that in Title Suit No. 41/1965, in which the plaintiff no.1 Bageshwar Pandey and proforma defendant Maheshwar Pandey were parties, a clear finding was said to have been recorded that Horil Pandey and Baichu Pandey were not full brothers and accordingly the plea of the plaintiffs that upon death of Bhukha Devi, her property would have devolved upon the descendants of Baichu Pandey as a reversionist is also falsified. The entire property of Bhukha Devi devolved upon defendant no. 1 Dakshineshwar Pandey in view of the fact that Dakshineshwar Pandey was the adopted son of Bhukha Devi by virtue of registered deed of adoption of the year 1964. 2025:JHHC:32817 23 51. In such circumstances, the plaintiff no. 1 Bageshwar Pandey and his sons who were co-plaintiffs as well as proforma defendant Maheshwar Pandey and his sons cannot be said to have been related by blood with Kenu Pandey (decendant of Horil Pandey and husband of Bhukha Devi, the recorded tenant of the suit property) so as to constitute a family, much less, a joint family and hence there cannot be any family settlement amongst them. 52. The defendant no. 1 was the biological son of proforma defendant Maheshwar Pandey, but he was given in adoption to Bhukha Devi by registered adoption deed dated 22.09.1964 whose validity was also tested in Title Suit No. 41/1965. The plea of the plaintiffs that the adoption deed was executed under wrong advise has no basis. 53. This Court is of the considered view that merely because the registered family settlement dated 05.12.1980 was neither challenged nor any counter claim was filed in the suit, the same has no bearing in the matter, inasmuch as, the family arrangement in the present case of the year 1980 has not been entered amongst members of the same family and therefore it cannot be said that plaintiff no. 1 Bageshwar Pandey and proforma defendant Maheshwar Pandey and their descendants could acquire any right, title and interest with respect to the suit property by virtue of family settlement as they did not belong to the family of Dakshineshwar Pandey (defendant no.1 and adopted son of recorded tendant). 54. Generally, allocation of share in case of family settlement, either through registered deed or otherwise by way of memorandum of settlement, is valid in the eyes of law as each member of a joint family has right, title and interest with respect to the joint family property which may be the subject matter of a family settlement. However, there cannot be any family settlement amongst persons who do not belong to the same family and further any allocation of property through such family settlement cannot confer any valid right, title and interest upon any person with respect to the property to which he is not a co-owner. This would be the position in law even if the true owner is a party /signatory to such family settlement. 2025:JHHC:32817 24 55. In the present case, the family settlement entered into by two full brothers Bageshwar Pandey and Maheshwar Pandey on the one hand, with Dakshineshwar Pandey on the other hand, cannot confer any title upon Bageshwar Pandey and Maheshwar Pandey with respect to the property which otherwise belongs to Dakshineshwar Pandey (defendant no.1) being the adopted son of Bhukha Devi (the recorded tenant) wife of Kenu Pandey and belonging to a different family of Horil Pandey. The registered family settlement cannot be used as a device to transfer property from one family to another. Merely because the family arrangement of the year 1980 was not challenged by filing a suit or cross-objection, the same by itself will not validate the family settlement by efflux of time and can be avoided by the contesting defendants without specifically challenging the same. 56. The fact remains that the learned court found that the defendant no. 1 was in actual physical possession of the entire suit property. The learned 1st appellate court has rightly taken note of Section 20 and Section 69 of the Santhal Paragana Tenancy (supplementary provisions) Act, 1969 to reject the plea of the plaintiffs based on registered family settlement dated 05.12.1980 and further there was no unity of title or unity of possession amongst the signatories to the registered family settlement dated 05.12.1980. In the earlier Title Suit No. 41 of 1965/10 of 1968, it was clearly held that Horil Pandey and Bechu Pandey were not full brothers and were not related to each other. 57. It is important to note that as per the case of the plaintiffs, Horil Pandey and Bechu Pandey were already separated and Horil Pandey got the property in Manikpur and Bechu Pandey got the property in Nawadih. It was argued before the learned courts that by virtue of the registered family arrangement dated 05.12.1980, which dealt with the properties of Manikpur, Jasidih, there was a reunion between the branches of Horil Pandey and Bechu Pandey. However, such plea was not sustainable, as in the earlier Title Suit No. 41 of 1965/10 of 1968, it was clearly held that Horil Pandey and Bechu Pandey were not full brothers and were not related to each other. Further, in view of Section 20 and Section 69 of the aforesaid Act, the suit property was itself non- transferrable and the registered family settlement dated 05.12.1980 2025:JHHC:32817 25 would defeat the aforesaid statutory provision creating bar on transfer of land. The registered family settlement dated 05.12.1980 was ex-facie illegal and void-ab-initio. Such family settlement was not binding on the contesting defendants who had inherited the entire suit property by virtue of being the adopted son of the recorded tenant, who died way back in the year 1965 and the adoption was held to be valid in the earlier suit. Accordingly, the judgment reported in 2010 AIR SC 211 (supra) as relied upon the learned counsel for the appellants does not help the appellants in any manner and the learned 1st appellate court was right in reversing the judgement of the learned trial court although no separate suit or counter claim was filed by the contesting defendants challenging the registered family settlement dated 05.12.1980. 58. This court is of the considered view that the findings of the learned 1st appellate court and also the conclusions are based on correct appreciation of the materials placed on record. 59. This Court is of the considered that the learned 1st appellate court, while reversing the judgment of the learned trial court, has rightly held that the registered family settlement of the year 1980 cannot be given effect to and has rightly reversed the finding of the learned trial court, which had decreed the suit on the basis of the registered family settlement of the year 1980. 60. The substantial question of law framed by this Court is accordingly answered against the appellants-plaintiffs and in favour of the respondents-contesting defendants. Consequently, this second appeal is hereby dismissed. 61. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 62. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 29.10.2025 Mukul/- Uploaded on 31.10.2025