Letters Patent Appeal No.22 OF 1992 ---- Appeal against the judgment dated 17.1.1992 passed by a learned Single Judge in F.A.No.171 of 1977. 1. Sheopujan Raut 2. Sheo Balak Raut, son of Bhukhal Raut, R/o Village Bishunpura, P.o.Bishunpura, Distt-Gopalganj 3. Jumia Devi W/o Ram Bilas Raut, R./O vill- Damcho,P.O.P.s.Basantpur,Distt-Siwan 4. Binda Raut @ Binda Yadav, son of Singhasan Raut, R/o village Supauli,P.s.Sindhwalia, Distt-Gopalganj 5. Singhan Raut son of Dhuri Raut, R/O village Supauli,,P.s.Sindhwalia, Distt-Gopalganj 6. Smt. Mateshwari Devi,D/o Singhasan Raut and wife of Ram Prasad Raut,R/o village Junga Belas,P.s.Goria Kothi, at present village Bishunpura P.s.Basrauli, Distt-Gopalganj 7. Smt. Matia Devi W/o Ram Sakal Raut, R/o Village Jangal Belas,P.s.Goria Kohi, Distt-Siwan 8. Lautan Raut son of Pitamber Raut 9. Ram Asis Raut 10. Ramlal Raut both sons of Lautan Raut, R/O village Bishunpura, Dist-Gopalganj 11. Dharam Nath Raut 12. Sitaram Raut 13. Kamal Raut, all sons of Jhakar Raut,,R/O village Sidhwalia, P.O. Sidhwalia, Distt-Gopalganj. 14. Smt. Tetri Devi wife of Late Jhakar Raut R/O village Surbal, P.S.Basrauli, distt-Gopalganj 15. Smt. Sabhari Devi daughter of Late Jhakar Raut R/O village Khabaspur, P.s. P.O. Gorak Kothi,, distt-Siwan 16. Smt. Dularia Devi wife of Babulal Raut, R/O village Hasanpur, P.s.Sidhwalia, Distt-Gopalganj.-Appellants. Versus 1. a) Most.Janki Kuer widow of Banarsi Raut (b) Bhagwan Raut (c) Chhathu Raut (d) Baldeo Raut, all resident of Bhishanpura, P.S.Barauli, Distt- Gopalganj (e) Smt. Shushila Devi 2. Smt. Panpati daughter of Sheo Narain Raut 3. Smt. Singari Devi grand daughter of shoe Narain Raut, R/O village Bishanpur Distt-Gopalganj 4. Tilak Raut son of Brahmdeo Raut 5. Sonia Devi daughter of Brahmdeo Raut 6. Phulia Devi wife of Khublal Raut 7. Krishna Raut son of Khublal Raut 8. Kanti Devi daudghter of Khublal Raut 9. Rajendra Raut son of Dharamdeo Raut, R/o Village- Bishanpura, Distt- Gopalganj Defendant-appellants-respondents 2 10. Parvati Devi wife of Bikram Raut resident of village Krasghat Kalharia, P.s.Sidhwalia, Distt-Gopalganj, 11. Lalmatia wife of Gautam Raut of Molenapur,P.O.Bishanpura,Distt-Gopalganj 12. Nagina Raut son of Late Jathan Raut, 13. Bikram Raut son of Bhola Raut 14. Bhawani Devi 15. Rajni Devi 16. Bari Devi all daughters of Bhola Raut 17. Raman Raut 18. Saudagar Raut both sons of Naga Raut (decd),R/O village Pipra, P.s.Barauli, Distt-Gopalganj 19. Raj Mohammad Mian, son of Ismail Mian R/O village Panditpur, P.s.Barauli, Distt-Gopalganj 20. Ali Asghar Mian son of Israil Mian 21. Hajijan wife of Israil Mian 22. Abadani daughter of Israil Mian R/o village Siswa, Barauli, Distt-Gopalganj 23. Nababan daughter of Israil Mian 24. Jhangir Mian son of Gul Bahar Mian 25. Umasti wife of Saleem Mian of village Lalgarh Harharpur, P.O.Goria, Distt-Siwan 26. Sumati wife of Haleem Mioa and daughter of late Gul Bahar Mian, of Hariharpur 27. Nawahu wife of Shamsul Mian village Bishaunpura, Distt-Gopalganj 28. Nasiban W/O Ismail Mian 29. Safari Mian 30. Maksood Mian both sons of Ismail Mian R/O village Bishunpura, Bazar, P.O.Bishunpur Bazar, District- Gopalganj. Respondent 2nd party. For the appellants : Mr. Ashutosh Jha Mr. Abhijit Kumar Lal For the respondents : None ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN S.K.Katriar Jyoti Saran,JJ. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Jha for the appellants. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the plaintiffs, who are aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.1.1992, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in F.A.No.171 of 3 1977, whereby the appeal preferred by the defendants has been allowed. We shall go by the description of the parties appearing on the plaint. 2. The plaintiffs (the appellants herein) filed T.S.No.223 of 1970, for partition of the properties set out in the three schedules appended to the plaint. The defendants appeared and contested the suit. The learned Trial Court formulated the following issues for adjudication: 1. Is the suit as framed maintainable? 2. Have the plaintiffs any cause of action for the suit? 3. Is the suit barred by ouster and exclusion or adverse possession? 4. Is the court fee paid sufficient? 5. Whether the defendants story of partition of the lands described in schedule I of the plaint was true and, if not, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for partition with respect thereto? 6. Whether there was unity of title and possession between the plaintiffs and the defendant nos.1 to 7 with respect to their lands described in schedule 2 and 3 of the plaint? 7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for partition as prayed? 8. To what relief for reliefs, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled to? 3. The learned trial court decreed the suit on contest in part by judgment and decree dated 23.12.1976. The plaintiffs had claimed one third of schedule I properties, which was decreed. The plaintiffs had claimed half of schedule II properties which was rejected. As to schedule III properties, the plaintiffs claimed half of schedule III properties excluding 4 kathas allegedly purchased by them from 4 their own funds by a registered deed of absolute sale. This relief was decreed to the extent prayed for. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment, the defendants preferred F.A.No.171 of 1977 which has been allowed in part on contest. The defendants did not contest the relief given to the plaintiffs with respect to Schedule I properties decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. In so far as Schedule II properties are concerned, the plaintiffs had preferred cross objection which has been rejected. In other words, the finding of the learned trial court that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any portion of schedule II properties has been upheld. As to Schedule III properties, the learned Single Judge has set aside the findings of the learned trial court. Hence this appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs. 5. While assailing the validity of the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the plaintiffs (appellant herein) submits that the learned Single Judge has not considered the reasonings assigned by the learned trial court. He relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Rohan Kumar alias Rohan Pandit and another Vs. Lachuchuman Pakar and others reported in 1976 BBCJ 410. 6. We have considered the materials on record and submissions of the learned counsel. The first appeal arises out of a partition suit and raises issues of facts only. No question of law at all arises in the 5 present appeal. The scope of jurisdiction under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is narrow. Law is equally well settled that in a proceeding of the present nature, this court is normally bound by findings of the facts recorded by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal. The learned Single Judge exercising the First Appeal jurisdiction was duty-bound to examine all issues of the facts and law which normally bind the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal. The scope of interference in L.P.A. has been considered by a Division Bench of the Court in the case of Barhu Ram and others Vs. Butai Ram and another 1999 (2) Bihar Law Judgments-Patna 818. The judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference. “15.- Counsel for the appellants submitted that in a Letters Patent Appeal, it is open to this court not only to consider questions of law, but also to go into questions of fact and in this appeal it is open to this Court to set aside the findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the appellate court. While it is true that the special jurisdiction of this court under Letters Patent does not inhibit the Court from going into questions of fact as well as questions of law, it is equally well settled that findings of fact may be set aside by this Court only if there are good reasons to do so. The appellants must be able to demonstrate before this court that the findings of fact are either perverse or palpably unreasonable and therefore unsustainable. If the trial court and the appellate Court have correctly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded findings which can be said to be reasonable, there will be no justification for setting aside such findings of fact. We have, therefore, noticed broadly the evidence on record with a view to satisfy ourselves as to whether the findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the appellate court are either 6 perverse, unreasonable or are based on no evidence or are vitiated for any other reason.” (Emphasis added) 7. We are equally of the view that the first appellate court is not required to meet the reasonings assigned by the learned trial court, inter alia, for the reasons that the first appellate court is in any case duty bound to examine all issues of facts and law. The law equally is well settled that the judgment of the first appellate court would be challenged in Letters Patent Appeal only if the aggrieved party is able to establish to the full satisfaction of the court that the learned first appellate court has recorded perverse findings of facts, which have no relevance to the materials on record. Equally the first appellate court has not considered a vital piece of evidence which, if considered by the Divisions Bench, will lead to a different conclusion. No such case has been made out by the plaintiffs before us. On the contrary, on a perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we are convinced that he has examined all issues on facts. He has examined the entire evidence on record, adjudicated all issues of facts and law and has reached the conclusions borne out by the evidence on record, and warranted in law. We do not find any ground for interference in this appeal. 7 8. Appeal is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.K.Katriar,J.) (Jyoti Saran,J.) Patna High Court, Dated 6th July,2009. NAFR/ ahk/