While deciding issue Nos.
So the properties were inherited by the plaintiff after Parbatias remarried.
Whether the plaintiffs is entitled to demand account from Balkishun Mahato and also recovery of dues from Balkishun as claimed in the plaint?
Hence the suit was decreed in part.
Parbatia the suit is number barred by limitation and the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit property.
The Division Bench declared title and ownership of the plaintiff Respondent in respect of the entire suit properties left by Sukai.
Hence this appeal by defendant Appellant.
58/1993, the defendant appellant preferred this appeal before this Court.
The plaintiff respondent then filed Letters Patent Appeal before the Patna High Court against the judgment of a learned Single Judge passed in appeal and the same was registered as LPA No.58/1993.
Plaintiffs further case was that Bal Kishun Mahto who was Chachera uncle of Sukai Mahto was appointed guardian of Sukai Mahto by the order of district judge in the year 1930 to look after the person and properties of Sukai Mahto during his minority.
Sukai was never illiterate.
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court after elaborate discussion of the evidence and facts and also the law allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial companyrt and the first appellate companyrt.
He had also rendered all his accounts and the suit was brought surreptitiously without knowledge of the defendant No.12 and that defendant No.12 came to know about the suit then he filed this written statement.
The plaintiff was number born in Magh, 1252F, but the plaintiff was born in Falgun, 1947 and the plaintiff was number major at the time of filing of this suit.
Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed a joint written statement.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and part decree both parties preferred appeals before the High Court which were disposed of by a companymon judgment.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief or reliefs?
Whether the plaintiff has cause of action for the suit?
The age of the plaintiff was number 20 years at the filing of this suit.
The learned Single Judge companycurred the finding recorded by the trial companyrt and dismissed the appeal.
Whether the plaintiff has subsisting title over the suit land?
Curiously enough, while deciding issue No.6 regarding the validity of oral gift, the trial companyrt held that Bal Kishun being in possession of property allegedly under the oral gift, the plaintiff is number entitled to recover possession of the same.
The plaintiff Respondent No.1 filed Title Suit No.12/3 of 1965/71 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Siwan for declaration of title over the suit property.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial companyrt framed the following issues Whether the suit as framed is maintainable?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession from any of the defendants who is held to be in possession over the suit land?
Whether Sukai Mahato had made oral gift of 1B 14 dhurs in favour of Balkishun defendant No.1 and whether Balkishun remained in possession of that land and whether his title is perfected by adverse possession over that area?
The suit was companytested by the defendant appellant by filing written statement.
3 and 5 the trial companyrt held that since the suit was filed within 12 year from the date of death of Mst.
Defendant No.1 had given up possession of the properties of Sukai during the life time of Sukai.
While deciding issue No.4 as to whether the plaintiff has subsisting title over the suit land, the trial companyrt after discussing the evidence proceeded to decide the legal issue and held that after remarriage Parbatia lost her title and interest in the estate of her previous husband but she companytinued in possession of the property even after remarriage hence her possession according to law companytinued to be that of trespasser.
Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?
By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench allowed the appeal holding that the plaintiff respondent became the absolute owner of the suit properties.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in LPA No.
Y.EQBAL,J. Leave granted.
