Letters Patent Appeal No.1241 OF 2001 (Against the Judgment and Order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11095 of 2001 on 5th September, 2001) SHANTI DEVI & ANR. -------------------------Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ------- Respondents --- For the Appellants : Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Mr. Rewti Kanti Raman & Mr. Gopal Sharan. For the Respondent : Mr. H.P Singh, Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Mr. Sudama Singh & Mr. Rajani Kant Singh. For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, J.C. to S.C.2. -------------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. PRASAD Barin Ghosh & C.M. Prasad, J.J. Basudeo Singh and Sukkhan Singh were cousin brothers. They had a partition amongst themselves. By reason of such partition, half of the properties jointly held by Basudeo Singh and Sukhan Singh came to the share of Sukhan Singh. It is claimed that the sons of Sukhan Singh namely, Mohar Singh and Ramsnehi Singh partitioned amongst themselves the properties inherited by them from 2 Sukhan Singh and such partition had been made orally. Having regard to the nature of the property and the valuation thereof, we do not accept such oral partition. If the oral partition is taken off, then mentioning of the oral partition and describing the boundary of the land gifted by Mohar Singh, son of Sukhan Singh in favour of the son of his brother Ramsnehi Singh, namely, Kameshwar Singh, is of no effect. In such event the gift by Mohar Singh in the absence of partition in between Mohar Singh and Ramsnehi Singh, should be deemed to be gift of undivided interest of Mohar Singh. As undivided co-owners, it must be deemed that Mohar Singh and Ramsnehi Singh were having half share each in every square inch of the land inherited by them from Sukhan Singh and such land in no uncertain term is situated adjacent to the land obtained by Basudeo Singh upon partition with Sukhan Singh, which land was later on, inherited by the son of Basudeo Singh namely, Shiv Badan Singh. In the event, any land thus inherited by Mohar Singh is transferred to Kameshwar Singh by way of gift and the same is transferred later on to the appellant, no doubt, despite a wrong boundary having been shown, the land so sold would be 3 adjacent to the land belonging to the land of Shiv Badan Singh. In the circumstances, we, being bound by the facts recorded by two authorities, cannot question the same in the absence of acceptable partition in between Mohar Singh and Ramsnehi Singh. The appeal, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed. Patna High Court, 29th July, 2008, D.K.S./N.A.F.R. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (C.M. Prasad, J.)