AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
On the prayer of learned counsel for the appellants, leave is granted to the learned Advocate-on-record for the appellants to rectify the memorandum of appeal to cure the defect as pointed out by the Additional Stamp Reporter.
The present Second Appeal has been preferred against a judgment of affirmance, whereby the courts below have declared the share of the plaintiffs in the suit property in the form of a preliminary decree of partition only partially, less than the claim of the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs/appellants claim title in respect of plot nos. 263 and 262/1824.
From the findings arrived at by the courts below, we find that the courts below proceeded on the premise that Sachindra Nath Pal, who was the admitted predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs’ vendor, was the owner of plot no. 263/1825, which is borne out by the title deed of Sachindra as well as the entries of the records of rights in the name of said Sachindra.
However, on the strength of the transfer purportedly effected by Sachindra in respect of plot no. 263/1825, plot no. 263 in its entirety was sold to the plaintiffs/respondents.
Thus, the courts below came to the finding that the plaintiffs did not acquire title in plot no. 263, since the original owner Sachindra himself did not have title in the same.
Insofar as the plot no. 262/1824 is concerned, although the title deed of Sachindra did not contain the said plot, apparently on the strength of the transfer by Sachindra, the said plot was also transferred in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants by their vendor.
The Trial Court found, upon a perusal of the concerned title deed, that is Exhibit-6, that at the foot note of the schedule of the deed, by separate ink, plot no. 262/1824, measuring twenty decimals, has been inserted. The finding of the trial court was that the said plot was subsequently inserted after registration of the deed and the same is a manufactured one to that extent. Such factual finding was affirmed by the first appellate court.
Since the aforesaid observations of the trial court and the appellate court are all findings of fact, there is no scope of interference in second appeal with such concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the courts.
Thus, we do not find any substantial question of law to be involved in this appeal.
Accordingly, SAT No. 171 of 2011 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
There will be no order as to costs.