High Court Jharkhand High Court

Rafique Mian vs Samar Mian & Ors. on 3 March, 2009

Jharkhand High Court
Rafique Mian vs Samar Mian & Ors. on 3 March, 2009
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Second Appeal No. 403 of 2004.
                                        ---
                   Rafique Mian                      ...       ... Appellant
                                             Versus
                   Samar Mian and others                  ...          ...      Respondents
                                    ---
                   CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR MERATHIA
                                    ---

                  For the Appellant    : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Senior Advocate
                  For the Respondents : None
                                          ---
     4. 3.3.2009

. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated
7.5.2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge-IV (F.T.C.), Jamtara
in Title Appeal No. 22 of 2001 affirming the judgment and decree dated
27.3.2001 passed by Sub Judge-II, Jamtara in Title Suit No. 65 of
1973/1986/99.

Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel for the appellant
submitted that the lower appellate court should have considered all the
evidences on record being first court of fact.

The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for partition claiming half
share. As per the defendant-appellant, the plaintiff was entitled to 1/5th
share. After considering the materials on record, the suit was decreed by
the trial court.

The appellant filed the said appeal. After considering the
respective cases of the parties and the submissions made before the Court
of appeal, the learned lower appellate court framed points for
consideration in appeal in paragraph 11, and thereafter, considered the
evidences on record for the purpose of examining the said points and
ultimately held that the trial court has rightly decided that plaintiff was
entitled to half share and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

In my opinion, no substantial question of law is involved in this
appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, no costs.

(R. K. Merathia, J)

R. Shekhar Cp.2.