Court of Munsif , Sonepur,
Shiv lochan Sharma V. Etwari Sharma,Judgement T.S. No. 26/1983
Present: Ravi Ranjan Kumar,Munsif,Sonepur
IN THE COURT OF MUNSIF , SONEPUR,SARAN
Title Suit No. ..26/1983
Sub-Divisional Court -Sonepur,District- Saran,
Present- Ravi Ranjan Kumar,Munsif, Sonepur,Saran,
Dated: ..............
1. Shiv Lochan Sharma
2. Balram Sharma ,
3. Pramila Devi and others
. ......................... Plaintiffs.
Vs.
1. Etwari Sharma @ Etwari Thakur
2. Tarkeshwar Thakur,
3. Baijnath Thakur,
4. Badamo Devi,
5. Vishnu Dayal Sah,
6. Rama Singh,
7. Bakeshwar Singh,
8. Biwi Madina and others
Ld. Counsel for Plaintiffs- Mr. Sheoji Singh & others.
Ld. Counsel for Defendants- Mr. Sameer Kr. Mishra & others.
Page No. 1 of 12
Court of Munsif , Sonepur,
Shiv lochan Sharma V. Etwari Sharma,Judgement T.S. No. 26/1983
Present: Ravi Ranjan Kumar,Munsif,Sonepur
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiffs have brought this suit for permanent injunction against defendants set 2
and a decree for declaration that defendants set 1 have no right and title to
transfer the suit land and also any such deed comes into the knowledge then the
defendants set 2 have no rights to interfare in the peaceful possession of
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also sought relief for cost of the suit and other
consequential reliefs.
Description of the 'Suit land' as prescribed in the plaint.
P.S. District Khata no. Tauzi
Mauza
Saidpur Dariyapur Saran 427 x
Khesra New Area Boundary
no. holding no.
419 09 katha 08 dhur North- Chandrika prasad,
x South- Road,
East- Baleshwar Prasad, West- x
Baleshwar Prasad
1. Plaintiff's Case →
The plaintiffs case in summary that the description of the land mentioned above
here in after mentioned as suit land was a bakast land owned by Babu Rajpati Sahay
and over which Babu Rajpati Sahay has his possession. One Ram Lochan Sharma,
the brother of plaintiff’s were separated in 1930 and started living at in laws house at
Madhepura with his family. Thereafter both the brothers have no concern with each
other. Further Plaintiffs have purchased the disputed land bearing the khata number
427 ,khesra no. 419 rakba 9 kattha 8 dhur in the name of Rama Nand Thakur the
brother in law of plaintif by paying the consideration and hence the papers and
possession of this land remained with plaintiff’s and Rama nand Thakur was only the
named purchaser. But subsequently one fact came in picture that this property was
purchased by one Shayam Bihari Singh through auction in the year 13.02.1939.
Hence by paying the adequate Nazrana to Keshaw Prasad Singh s/o Shayam Bihari
Singh the settlement of this disputed land was taken in the name of one Mos.
Singhasini Kuwar , sister of plaintiffs by paying the consideration from the earnings
of plaintiff’s. Mos. Singhasini Kuwar was living with her brothers, the plaintiff
therefore the possession over this property remained with plaintiff only. It is also
stated by plaintiffs that Mos. Singhasini Kuwar who wrote plain Ladawi
(unregistered relinquishment deed) in the year 20.03.1975 and handed over to the
plaintiff by conferring the posssession, which is marked Exhibit 3. On this date that is
20.03.1975, because of the unavailibility of registrar relinquishment deed could not
be registered. However after finding the possession over the land the circle officer
mutated this land in the name of plaintiff’s and dismissed the petition of defendants
Page No. 2 of 12
Court of Munsif , Sonepur,
Shiv lochan Sharma V. Etwari Sharma,Judgement T.S. No. 26/1983
Present: Ravi Ranjan Kumar,Munsif,Sonepur
on this ground on 16.11.1982. The appeal was
preferred in the court of DCLR was also rejected. This land was kept on mortgage
( Jar pesgi) by Mos. Singhasini Kuwar but redeemed.
As per the written Statement of the defendants 2,4 to 6,7,8 the cases of
defendants are as follows.
1. The defendant number two stated that the suit is not maintainable, it
is time barred and it is wrong to say that there was an oral settlement
in the name of Mos. Singhasini Kuwar.
2. The defendants 4 to 6 stated that there was no partition between the
brothers Ram Lochan Sharma and Shiv Lochan Sharma. This was
further restricted by them that in the year 1948 the settlement of land
was taken from the joint property of both the brothers Ram Lochan
Sharma and Shiv Lochan Sharma in the name of Mos. Singhasini
Kuwar. The further stated in the written statement that Mos. Singhasini
Kuwar never executed any relinquishment deed in favour of plaintiff’s in
the year 1975 or ever , the relinquishment deed which is marked as
exhibit 3 is false forged and fabricated and having no legal sanctity in the
eye of law because Mos. Singhasini Kuwar was unable to move before
six month of her death. It is also stated by the defendant that Etwari
Sharma @ Etwari Thakur s/o of Ram Lochan Sharma took the half
property that is 4 kattha 14 dhur from the joint property. Out of his share
he sold 02 kattha 7 dhur to Defendant no. 4 Badamo Devi towards west
and adjecent to the east of Badamo Devi he sold 14 ½ dhur to Vishnu
Dayal Singh, Def no. 5 and exactly towards east of Vishnu Dayal Singh
he also sold 14 ½ dhur to Baleshwar Singh Def. No. 7 , and remaining
18 dhur he sold to Rama singh def. No. 6 all the four sale was made
through registered sale deed. All of the above sale deed were marked as
A to A/3. And from the date of sale all the purchases have their
possession over their properties.
2. Points For Determination-
As per pleading and written statement the following issues has been framed- (Re-
issued)
I) Whether the suit as framed maintainable ?
II) Whether the plaintiffs has valid cause of action and right to sue ?
III) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation, Res-judicata, waiver,
acquiescence and estoppal ?
Page No. 3 of 12
Court of Munsif , Sonepur,
Shiv lochan Sharma V. Etwari Sharma,Judgement T.S. No. 26/1983
Present: Ravi Ranjan Kumar,Munsif,Sonepur
IV) Whether the suit properly valued and the court fees paid sufficient ?
V) Whether the plaintiffs entitled for permanent injunction over the suit land?
VI) Whether the plaintiffs entitled for declaration of a decree that defendant set one
has no rights to transfer the suit land?
VII) Whether the plaintiffs entitled for further declaration of a decree that defendants
have no rights to interfere in the possession of plaintiff?
VIII) Whether the plaintiffs entitled to other relief of reliefs ?
3. Evidence adduced by the plaintiffs (Oral Evidence)
1. P.W.1– Dhruv Kumar Kapoor (Formal witness)
2. P.W.2 – Shiv Dayal Singh (Formal witness)
3. P.W.3 – Virendra Sharma (Formal witness)
4. P.W.4 – Dev Kumar Sharma ( Fact witness)
5. P.W 5 – Ashok Thakur ( Fact witness)
6. P.W.6– Ramayan Thakur ( Fact witness)
7. P.W.7 – Ram Swaroop Prasad (Formal witness)
(Documentary Evidence)
1. Exhibit :1 Rent recipt of 1982-83,
2. Exhibit : 1/A Rent recipt of 1983-84,
3. Exhibit: 2. Original sale deed dated 02.06.1972 Etwari Thakur V. Shiv Lochan
Sharma,
4. Exhibit: 2/A Original sale deed dated 14/07/1948 Murli dhar Prasad V. Ramanand
Thakur,
5. Exhibit: 3 Plain Ladawi ( unregistered relinquishment deed) dated 20.03.1975 by
Mos Singhashini Kuwar V. Shiv Lochan Sharma.
4. Evidence adduced by defendant (Oral Evidence)-
1. D.W. 1 – Kaushal Kishore Singh (Formal witness)
2. D.W. 2 – Jay Nath Singh (Formal witness)
3. D.W. 3 – Ajit Singh (Fact witness)
4. D.W. 4 – Ali Asgar (Fact witness)
5. D.W. 5 – Vishnu Dayal Sah (Fact witness)
6. D.W. 6 – Lakshman Rai (Fact witness)
7. D.W. 7 – Madan Sah (Formal witness)
8. D.W. 8 – Rup Narayan Singh (Formal witness)
9. D.W. 9 – Santosh Kumar (Fact witness)
10. D.W. 10 –Vikram Chandra Yadav (Fact witness)
11. D.W. 11 – Ram Swaroop Prasad (Formal witness)
12. D.W. 12 – Etwari Thakur (Fact witness)
Page No. 4 of 12
Court of Munsif , Sonepur,
Shiv lochan Sharma V. Etwari Sharma,Judgement T.S. No. 26/1983
Present: Ravi Ranjan Kumar,Munsif,Sonepur
(Documentary Evidence)
1. Exhibit A – Original sale deed dated 27/11/1982 Etwari Thakur V. Dulhin
Badamo Devi,
2. Exhibit A/1 – Original sale deed dated 27/11/1982 Etwari Thakur V.
Vishnu Dayal Singh,
3. Exhibit A/2 – Original sale deed dated 27/11/1982 Etwari Thakur V.
Rama Singh,
4. Exhibit – Original post card written by Shiv Lochan Sharma in his own
hand writting,
5. Exhibit C to C/3 – Money order receiving receipt,
6. Exibit C/4 to C/ 7 Signature of Shiv Lochan Sharma over the money order
receiving receipt,
7. Exhibit D-Certified copy report of CO Dariyapur
8. Exhibit D/1-Certified copy of order of Appeal No. 57 of 1982-83 from DCLR
Chapra in the matter of Etwari thakur s/o Ram Lochan sharma V. Shiv Lochan
sharma,
5. Admitted facts
1. Shiv Lochan sharma and Ram Lochan sharma were true brothers,
2. Mos Singhashini Kuwar was true sister of Shiv Lochan sharma and Ram
Lochan sharma,
3. The actual owner od sisputed land was Murli Prasad s/o Rajpati Sahay,
4. The property was purchased in the name of Rama Nand Thakur the brother-in-
law of Shiv Lochan sharma and Ram Lochan sharma in the year 1948 through
registered sale deed,
5. After executing the above mentioned sale deed in para 4 of admitted facts, a
new fact came in the knowledge that the property of this sale deed was actually
purchased by one Shyam Bihari singh in the year 1939 through an auction,
6. subsequently the same is property was got settled by Keshav Singh s/o Babu
Shyam Bihari Singh in the name of Mos Singhashini Kuwar in the year 1948.
6. FINDINGS
Issue V, VI & VII →
V) Whether the plaintiffs entitled for permanent injunction over the suit
land?
VI) Whether the plaintiffs entitled for declaration of a decree that defendant
set one has no rights to transfer the suit land?
VII) Whether the plaintiffs entitled for further declaration of a decree that
defendants have no rights to interfere in the possession of plaintiff?
These three issues are core issues involved in this suit, hence dealt
Page No. 5 of 12
Court of Munsif , Sonepur,
Shiv lochan Sharma V. Etwari Sharma,Judgement T.S. No. 26/1983
Present: Ravi Ranjan Kumar,Munsif,Sonepur
Jointly. Both the parties are basically from one family, original plaintiff and
original defendant no. 1 are uncle and nephew in relation. Etwari Sharma @
Etwari Thakur S/o Ram Lochan Sharma defendant number one and plaintiff
Shiv Lochan Sharma claims that the suit land was settled in the name of Mos
Singhashini Kuwar in the year 1948. Plaintiffs claimed that the suit land was
in possession of them and was purchased by the individual income of Shiv
Lochan Shama. Mos Singhashini Kuwar was only the named owner and
subsequently considering the fact she ( Mos Singhashini Kuwar) wrote to the
relinquishment deed ( Ladawai) in 1975 in favour of plaintiff, however this
deed could not be registered because on that day the registrar was not
available. In support of his pleading the plaintiffs have introduced seven
witnesses and also produced five documents exhibited from 1,1/A, 2 , 2/A
and 3. The other hand defendants have introduced twelve witnesses and also
produced documentary evidences exhibited from A, A/1, A/2, B, c, to C/3,
C/4 to C/7, D, and D/1.
Now in order to prove and settle the above three issues certain
points need to be determined.
a. Whether the partition actually took place between both the
brothers Shiv Lochan Sharma and Ram Lochan Sharma in
the year 1930?
b. Whether the disputed land purchased in the name of Mos
Singhashini Kuwar was from the income of joint property
of both the brothers Shiv Lochan Sharma and Ram
Lochan Sharma?
c. Whether the unregistered relinquishment deed (Sada
Ladawi) is a valid and legal document and can be
enforceable by the law?
As per pleading of the plaintiffs, the initial burden of
proof would be on the plaintiffs, in view of Section 101 of the
Evidence Act, which reads as under:-
"Sec. 101. Burden of proof. Whoever desires any Court to give
judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence
of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a
person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the
burden of proof lies on that person."
In terms of the said provision, the burden of proving the fact rests on the party
who substantially asserts the affirmative issues and not the party who denies it.
Pleading is not evidence. Hence the plaintiffs has to prove his version of the suit. In
the instant suit plaintiff has claimed in para 2 of plaint that the partition took place
between both the brothers in 1930. But the plaintiff has not given any date or time or
mode of partition to prove the partition between
Page No. 6 of 12
Court of Munsif , Sonepur,
Shiv lochan Sharma V. Etwari Sharma,Judgement T.S. No. 26/1983
Present: Ravi Ranjan Kumar,Munsif,Sonepur
them nor they have given any proof that partition has acted upon between them. Nor
the plaintiff shown any subsequent act of both the brothers which could
consclusively determine that the they are living seperately. The Mulla Hindu Law in
the article 327 read with article 327(4) says that there is a presumption of jointness
of a Hindu family and the person who claims the partition has to prove. The witness
number3,4,5 & 6 are fact witnesses who have simply stressed upon the possession
only. The witness number three Birendra Sharma presently the plaintiff was
examined on 03.04.2006, he was 30 years old on that day meaning thereby he was
born somewhere in the year 1976. In the para four of his affidavit he claimed that the
partition between the brothers took place in the year 1930, which means 45 years
before his birth but he never mentioned about the source of this knowledge. It means
that this information about the partition was a hearsay evidence. However section 60
of The Indian Evidence Act says that the evidence must be direct and the witnesses
are supposed to explain that he has heared or seen the fact from his own eyes or ears.
Therefore on the basis of the above mentioned fact it seems that the plaintiff has
failed to prove the fact that the partition between the brothers took place in 1930.
The honourable Supreme Court in the
matter of Union of India V. Vasavi co. Housing Society
Ltd. & Others 2014 (2) SCC 269 held that “ in a title suit,
plaintiff has to succeed on the strength of his own case
burden of proof is totally upon the plaintiff.”
In in the instant case burden of proof not shifted on defendant to prove this,
however defendants have produced the receipt of money which was marked as
exhibited C to C/3, these money order receipt reveals that money order was sent by
defendant Etwari Sharma in the year 1967 etc. which means the family was not
separated rather it was joint, therefore, the series of exhibit C produced by
defendant’s shows that both the brothers Shiv Lochan sharma and Ram Lochan
sharma were not separated. The defendant number one Etwari Sharma son of Ram
Lochan sharma aged about all 78 years as defendant witness supported the case of
defendant, in para four and 38 of examination in Chief also para 43,44,50,51 & 56 of
his cross examination thoroughly supported the defendants version. In this way both
the sub issue a & b framed for the determination of issue number 5,6 and seven are
determined and can be said that the brothers Shiv Lochan sharma and Ram Lochan
sharma were not separated and resultantly the property purchased in the name of
Mos Singhashini Kuwar from the joint income of both the brothers Shiv Lochan
Sharma and Ram Lochan Sharma.
In order to decide the issue number 5,6 and seven completely, the third question
that is sub issue no. c, whether the unregistered relinquishment deed (sada Ladawi)
is a valid and legal document and can be enforceable by the law?, Needs to be
Page No. 7 of 12
Court of Munsif , Sonepur,
Shiv lochan Sharma V. Etwari Sharma,Judgement T.S. No. 26/1983
Present: Ravi Ranjan Kumar,Munsif,Sonepur
decided. In para 16 of the plaint it is asserted that Mos Singhashini Kuwar written
and unregistered relinquishment deed (Sada Ladawi) in favour of her brother Shiv
Lochan Sharma in order to return the property to the real owner that it is claimed by
the plaintiff that Mos Singhashini Kuwar was the owner only for name sake. Section
17 of the Indian registration Act 1908 says that the registration of Ladawi it
compulsory for its validity. Sub section b of section 17 of the Indian registration Act
1908 reads as
‘ other non-Testament instruments which purport or
operate to create, declare , assign, limit or extinguish,
whether in present or in the future, any right, title or interest,
whether vested or contingent, of the value of Rs. 100 and
upwards to or in immovable property.’
Similarly section 49 of the Indian registration Act 1908 says that if the
documents required to be registered under section 17 is and registration is not done,
such document does not have any legal value and cannot be enforceable by law nor
such a document can be accepted as an evidence. Honourable Supreme Court in the
matter of
Yellapu Uma Maheshwari V. Buddha Jugadheeswara
Rao & others 2015 (4) PLJR (SC) 494 held that sada ladawai
that is an unregistered relinquishment deed has no legal
sanctity in the eye of law and cannot be taken as an evidence.
In support of the issue no. V that is Whether the plaintiffs entitled for
permanent injunction over the suit land? plaintiffs need to challenge the sale deed
executed by defendant Etwari Sharma. On the other hand the defendants no.4 to 8
Are the purchaser from defendant number one Etwari Sharma, have been examined
as a witness in support of defendants, they have claimed that they are in the
possession on their respected land purchased from the defendant number one Etwari
Sharma.
Honourable Supreme Court in the
matter of Prem singh V. Birbal Singh AIR 2006 SC
3608 held that there is a presumption of correctness and
genuinity of a registered sale deed.
Similarly Honourable Supreme Court
in the matter of Ananthula Sudhakar V. Buchi Reddy,
AIR 2008 SC 2 023 held that this is an established
principle of Law that is if there is a question of title over
the suit land then, plaintiff has to file the suit for the
declaration of title and recovery of possession and hence,
in such cases suit for only permanent injunction is not
Page No. 8 of 12
Court of Munsif , Sonepur,
Shiv lochan Sharma V. Etwari Sharma,Judgement T.S. No. 26/1983
Present: Ravi Ranjan Kumar,Munsif,Sonepur
maintainable.
However, plaintiffs have produced the rent receipt, which does not create any
proof for the support of title. Number of cases heled by honourable Supreme Court
and honourable Patna High Court stating there in revenue receipts are not the proof
of title. It can neither create nor extinguish title. In other hands, the appeal filed by
defendant in the court of DCLR against the decision of CO was passed in favour of
defendants. Defendants have produced the certified copy of that order which is on
the record marked as exhibit D/1. In this way it is also clear that the defendants who
are the purchaser of land from defendant no. 1 Etwari Sharma @ Etwari Thakur are
also in the possession of their respected purchased land.
In the light of above discussion it appers crystal clear that the partition
actually never took place between both the brothers Shiv Lochan Sharma and Ram
Lochan Sharma in the year 1930. The disputed land purchased in the name of Mos
Singhashini Kuwar by the joint income of both the brothers Shiv Lochan Sharma
and Ram Lochan Sharma and the unregistered relinquishment deed (Sada Ladawi)
is not a valid and legal document and cannot be enforceable by the law.
Consequently, these three issue no. V, VI & VII are answered in negative and
against the plaintiff.
Issue no. II, III & IV →
II) Whether the plaintiffs has valid cause of action and right to sue ?
III) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation, Res-
judicata, waiver, acquiescence and estoppal ?
IV) Whether the suit properly valued and the court fees paid sufficient ?
The burden to prove the issue no. II,III, IV is on
the defendants. In the written statement the defendant pleaded that
the suit is barred by limitation, waiver, acquiescence and estoppal
but not illustrated the fact as to how the suit is barred by limitation
and neither any oral or documentary evidence has been produced by
the defendant to prove this fact nor these issues were pressed during
the time of argument, hence it is decided accordingly.
The plaintiff has paid proper court fee for the same as
supported by sheristedar's report. Consequently these above three
issues are answered in negative and in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendants .
Issue No. I & VIII→
I) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable ?
VIII) Whether the plaintiffs entitled to other relief of reliefs ?
As held under aforesaid para while dealing with issue no. V,VI & VII the
plaintiff has not proved his case. In the light of above discussion, these two issues
Page No. 9 of 12
Court of Munsif , Sonepur,
Shiv lochan Sharma V. Etwari Sharma,Judgement T.S. No. 26/1983
Present: Ravi Ranjan Kumar,Munsif,Sonepur
are answered in negative.
In the result, it is therefore,
ORDERED
That the Suit be and same is dismissed without
cost. Decree shall be drawn accordingly.
(Ravi Ranjan Kumar)
Munsif
Sonepur,Saran
Typed and Corrected by
me
(Ravi Ranjan Kumar)
Munsif , Sonepur,Saran,
Page No. 10 of 12
Court of Munsif , Sonepur,
Shiv lochan Sharma V. Etwari Sharma,Judgement T.S. No. 26/1983
Present: Ravi Ranjan Kumar,Munsif,Sonepur
IN THE COURT OF MUNSIF, SONEPUR, SARAN
Title Suit No. 26/1983
Sub-Divisional Court -Sonepur,District- Saran,
Present- Ravi Ranjan Kumar
Munsif, Sonepur, Saran.
Date:
Appendix of index
Evidence adduced by the plaintiffs (Oral Evidence)
1. P.W.1– Dhruv Kumar Kapoor (Formal witness)
2. P.W.2 – Shiv Dayal Singh (Formal witness)
3. P.W.3 – Virendra Sharma (Formal witness)
4. P.W.4 – Dev Kumar Sharma ( Fact witness)
5. P.W 5 – Ashok Thakur ( Fact witness)
6. P.W.6– Ramayan Thakur ( Fact witness)
7. P.W.7 – Ram Swaroop Prasad (Formal witness)
(Documentary Evidence)
1. Exhibit :1 Rent recipt of 1982-83,
2. Exhibit : 1/A Rent recipt of 1983-84,
3. Exhibit: 2. Original sale deed dated 02.06.1972,
Etwari Thakur V. Shiv Lochan Sharma,
4. Exhibit: 2/A Original sale deed dated 14/07/1948
Murli dhar Prasad V. Ramanand Thakur,
5. Exhibit: 3 Plain Ladawi ( unregistered relinquishment deed) dated 20.03.1975
by Mos Singhashini Kuwar V. Shiv Lochan Sharma.
2. Evidence adduced by defendant (Oral Evidence)
1. Kaushal Kishore Singh (Formal witness)
2. D.W. 2 – Jay Nath Singh (Formal witness)
3. D.W. 3 – Ajit Singh (Fact witness)
4. D.W. 4 – Ali Asgar (Fact witness)
5. D.W. 5 – Vishnu Dayal Sah (Fact witness)
6. D.W. 6 – Lakshman Rai (Fact witness)
7. D.W. 7 – Madan Sah (Formal witness)
8. D.W. 8 – Rup Narayan Singh (Formal witness)
9. D.W. 9 – Santosh Kumar (Fact witness)
10. D.W. 10 –Vikram Chandra Yadav (Fact witness)
11. D.W. 11 – Ram Swaroop Prasad (Formal witness)
12. D.W. 12 – Etwari Thakur (Fact witness)
Page No. 11 of 12
Court of Munsif , Sonepur,
Shiv lochan Sharma V. Etwari Sharma,Judgement T.S. No. 26/1983
Present: Ravi Ranjan Kumar,Munsif,Sonepur
(Documentary Evidence)
1. Exhibit A – Original sale deed dated 27/11/1982 Etwari Thakur V. Dulhin
Badamo Devi,
2. Exhibit A/1 – Original sale deed dated 27/11/1982 Etwari Thakur V.
Vishnu Dayal Singh,
3. Exhibit A/2 – Original sale deed dated 27/11/1982 Etwari Thakur V.
Rama Singh,
4. Exhibit – Original post card written by Shiv Lochan Sharma in his own
hand writting,
5. Exhibit C to C/3 – Money order receiving receipt,
6. Exibit C/4 to C/ 7 Signature of Shiv Lochan Sharma over the money
order receiving receipt,
7. Exhibit D-Certified copy report of CO DariyapurExhibit D/1-Certified copy of
order of Appeal No. 57 of 1982-83 from DCLR Chapra in the matter of Etwari
thakur s/o Ram Lochan sharma V. Shiv Lochan sharma
Official / Court Exhibit: No
Written Statement :
Framing of Issue :
Recast the issue :
Argument concluded:
( Ravi Ranjan Kumar)
Munsif , Sonepur,
Page No. 12 of 12
