IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8438 of 2011 NIRALA PRASAD CHAUDHARY @ NIRALA CHAUDHARY Versus SMT.SARITA CHAUDHARY & ORS ----------- 5. 11.05.2011 Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order dated 05.12.2008 passed by learned Sub-Judge, 1st Patna City, in Title Suit No. 164 of 2006 on the ground that in the written statement, the petitioner has admitted the fact that the suit property is ancestral property and had never said that there was any family settlement by which the father of the defendant-respondent gave the property exclusively to the defendant respondent. A vague assertion has been made in writ petition that in the written statement the defendant has not even referred the fact regarding the said family settlement. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that if the settlement of the petitioner is found to be correct then a preliminary issue shall be framed and parties shall be allowed to lead evidence. The petition is disposed of. Ravi/- ( Prakash Chandra Verma, j.)