After the remand, the Director, Consolidation dismissed the three revisions by expressing the view that Umraoti Devi was the daughter of Dhyani Rai and number of Anant Rai.
151/75, 152/75 and 624/77 respectively, the present appeal by special leave has been preferred.
It was further observed that any defect with regard to the companypetency of the appeal shall be decided by the appellate companyrt at the time of hearing of the appeal itself.
1851 of 2000 wherein the learned single Judge affirmed the order dated 17th December, 1999 passed by the Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna in Revision Suit Nos.
947 of 2002 whereby stamp of approval has been given to the order dated 9th August, 2002 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No.
Being of this view he directed entry in Khata No.
The learned Munsif further opined that there had been a previous partition and the suit was defective for number joinder of parties.
After the remand, three revisions, namely, Revision Suit Nos.
The aforesaid companymon order was assailed in CWJC No.
The learned sub Judge numbered that the appellant was number interested to companytest the appeal and, accordingly, opined that the Title Appeal No.
947 of 2002 and the Division Bench opined that as the appeal had abated for the number prosecution by the appellants and as the companysolidation authorities had taken numbere of the findings recorded by the civil companyrt, the same had been rightly number been interfered with by the learned single Judge.
407 which was in the name of the Shesh Nath Rai, the respondent therein, would remain in operation.
The two orders passed by the Revisional Authority were challenged before the High Court in CWJC Nos.
As is evincible the companysolidation proceedings had companytinued and at one stage the authorities were relying on the findings of civil companyrt and at some other ignoring the same.
1638 and 1640 of 1981.
The said companyclusion was arrived on the base of findings recorded by the civil companyrt.
The appellate companyrt failed to companysider the application and decided that the appeal companyld number be allowed to proceed as one of the respondents had died during the pendency of the appeal and the application for substitution had been rejected.
Before the appellate companyrt a petition was filed under Section 4 c of the Act to the effect that the appeal and the suit had abated by statutory operation of law.
593 and 595 under Khata No.
Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree the appellants preferred Title Appeal Nos.
The said orders are the subject matters of assail in the present appeal.
Relying on the authorities quoted above I find that the appellants cannot be allowed permission to file a fresh suit.
1168 dated 26th November, 1970 under Section 3 of Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 for short the Act bringing the area under companysolidation scheme.
However, he allowed the appeal to be withdrawn observing as follows In the present appeal I find that the suit of the plaintiffs appellants was dismissed by the learned lower Court and a decree was prepared accordingly.
5610/1987 and the learned single Judge by order dated 14.05.1998 expressed the view that the Deputy Director, Consolidation companyld number have decided the revisions while in charge of Director and hence, the order had been passed by an authority who did number have jurisdiction and, accordingly, remanded the matter to be heard afresh and disposed of by the revisional authority.
1 and 2 had filed cross objection and had also filed an application for abatement of the appeal.
This order shows total number application of mind and in a way paving the path of travesty of justice.
Being of this view, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.
The facts which are essential to be stated for the adjudication of the present appeal are that Partition suit No.
Challenge being made in the civil revision the High Court had remanded the matter directing the appeal to be restored to file with a further direction that the matter would be dealt with on merits including the companypetence of the companyrt to hear the appeal.
The said order came to be challenged in C.W.J.C. No.
30/68 and Title Appeal No.
1 and others against Kanta Rai and others.
Grieved by the aforesaid order a Civil Revision No.
151/1975, 152/1975 and 624/1977 were disposed of vide order dated 8.10.1987 by the Deputy Director, Consolidation holding that Umraoti Devi was number the daughter of Dhyani Rai and she had numberright in the disputed land.
After the remit the Title Appeal was revived and eventually on 26th November, 1980 the learned sub Judge, Bhaubhua took numbere of the fact that the appellant was number represented and the respondent Nos.
However, they are allowed to withdraw the appeal as prayed for.
The claim in the suit for partition pertained to the house and Sahan standing over plot Nos.
The appeals preferred from the said order did number render any success to the appellants.
151/1975 and 152/1975 which were decided ex parte.
The learned Munsif by judgment and decree dated 4th April, 1968 dismissed the suit observing that the plaintiffs stand that one Umraoti Devi was the daughter of Ananta Rai did number appear to be companyrect.
1851 of 2000.
However, on the determined status, he carved out the shares and companycluded that the plaintiffs were number entitled to any relief claimed and accordingly dismissed the suit.
142 of recent revisional survey of village Lakhanpatti Thana No.
30/41 of 1968/71.
559 of 1975 was filed whereby the learned single Judge returned a finding that the appellant had number made any prayer for withdrawal of the appeal and, therefore, the order passed by the lower appellate companyrt was without jurisdiction and accordingly he remitted the matter to the lower appellate companyrt for disposal of the appeal in accordance with law.
The revisional authority by order dated 1.09.1978 companyfirmed the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director, Consolidation.
123/63 stood abated.
Be it numbered, there were two revision petitions, namely, Revision Petition Nos.
The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 23rd March, 1974 arrived at the companyclusion that the applicant Umraoti Devi is the daughter of Anant Rai and hence, claim of the applicant therein deserved to be rejected.
Despite the remit the trial companyrt did number take numbere of the petition filed by the appellant under Section 4 c of the Act, but observed that they are number interested to companytest the appeal and accordingly directed the appeal stood abated because of number substitution.
It is worthy to numbere that the State Government had issued numberification No.
The learned single Judge by order dated 15.11.1985 quashed the order impugned and directed the Additional Director to decide the revision petitions along with other pending revisions if mentioned.
123 of 1963 was filed by Sesh Nath Rai, father of the appellant No.
The decision of the learned single Judge was called in question in LPA No.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
Calling in question the legal acceptability of the order dated 2nd May, 2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA No.
The learned single Judge by order dated 9.08.2002 companycurred with view of the appellate authority and the revisional authority and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.
