Mantri Tudu vs Sati Tudu
2022 Latest Caselaw 233 Jhar

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                S.A. No. 528 of 2015
                                                 ------

1. Mantri Tudu

2. Hoponti Tudu

3. Santosh Tudu

4. Huding Tudu

5. Ishwar Tudu

6. Maklu Tudu

7. Talamai Tudu

8. Babulal Tudu .... Appellant(s).

                                                          Versus
                 1. Sati Tudu
                 2. Deputy Commissioner, Dumka                              ... Respondent(s)
                                         ------
           CORAM           :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
                              Through: Video Conferencing
                                                 ------
           For the Appellant(s)    : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Prasad, Advocate.
           For the Respondents     :
                                                .........

06/03.02.2022:             This second appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and

decree dated 12.8.2015 (decree signed on 24.8.2015) passed by the learned District and Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka in Title (Partition) Appeal No. 12/2013 upholding and affirming the judgment and decree dated 14.3.2013 (decree signed on 30.3.2013) by the learned Sr. Civil Judge-I, Dumka in Title (Partition) Suit No. 89 of 2007.

2. The appellants herein were the defendants in the Title Partition Suit. As the Title Partition Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff, the appellants- defendants preferred an appeal before the first appellate court, which was dismissed, resulting the filing of this appeal.

3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff praying for partition of the suit property claiming his half share in the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the parties are related to each other and the descendants of common ancestor and the property was jointly recorded in the name of Chatur Tudu, Ragda Tudu, Jalpa Tudu, Ram Tudu and Matla Tudu son of Bali Tudu in the Gantzer settlement. It is further case of the plaintiff that in the current survey settlement, the land is recorded in the name of Sati Tudu, son of Jalpa Tudu (plaintiff) and in the name of other defendants, who are the sons of Chota Bali Tudu, Fagu Tudu and Sukur Tudu. It is further case of the plaintiff that as Ragda Tudu, Ram Tudu and Matla Tudu and Narayan Tudu died issueless and as such, the interest of the property devolved upon the surviving two brothers namely Chatur Tudu and Jalpa Tudu. The plaintiff is the son of Jalpa Tudu whereas the defendants are the sons of Chatur Tudu and as per the customary law of Santhal, the parties inherited the property jointly and they are in the joint cultivating possession of the suit property. It is also the case of the plaintiff that with the collusion with the settlement Amin, the defendants got their name

recorded in current survey settlement excluding the plaintiff.

4. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement opposing the partition claim. They admitted that in the Ganzter settlement the land was recorded in the name of Jalpa Tudu and Chatur Tudu and their other brothers. It was also admitted that their other brothers were issueless. The defendants had also taken plea that Jalpa Tudu thereafter got marriage and became ghardamad and went to Dhanbasa and started living with his in-laws. Further plea was taken that as Jalpa Tudu became ghardamad, he is not entitled to inherit the parental property. It is further case that Jalpa Tudu cannot inherited the property and the property will devolved solely upon Chatur Tudu and thereafter to the defendants. As per defendants, according to Santhal Pargana Regulation Act ghardamad is entitled to inherit the property of father-in-law only. It is further case of the defendants that after few years of marriage, due to dispute between father-in-law and Jalpa Tudu, Jalpa Tudu returned to his native village. Out of love and affection the ancestor of defendants had given some land to him so that he can maintain himself. It is also the case of the defendants that since the suit was not maintainable in terms of Section 25 of the Santhal Pargana Regulation Act as because in terms of the said regulation, it is the plaintiff, who should have challenged the recording of land before the settlement officer and not by filing any partition suit.

5. The trial court after recording the evidences of the parties had concluded that there is no evidence to the effect that Jalpa Tudu became a ghardamad. The trial court further came to a conclusion that the property is joint and the plaintiff is also entitled for partition of the property. The first appellate court independently has considered the evidences led by the parties and held that there is nothing on record which can prove that Jalpa Tudu became ghardamad.

6. Counsel for the appellants-defendants submits that as per customary law, Jalpa Tudu became a ghardamad and both the courts have wrongly concluded that Jalpa Tudu cannot be said to become ghardamad. He further submits that due to customary law, a ghardamad is not entitled to inherit his own ancestor property from his parental side. He also submits that once the right of record has been prepared, the plaintiff should have approach the Settlement Officer for correcting the record and as that not being done, the suit is not maintainable.

7. After hearing the parties, I find that it is not the case of the plaintiff that Jalpa Tudu became a ghardamad. This fact has been asserted by the defendants. Thus onus is upon the defendants to prove by cogent evidence that Jalpa Tudu became a ghardamad. Both the courts below have held that the defendants have failed to prove that Jalpa Tudu became a ghardamad. When the courts held that Jalpa Tudu was not a ghardamad then the question that he was not entitled to inherit the parental property is irrelevant. Further from the admitted case of the

parties, I find that the land initially was recorded in the name of Jalpa Tudu along with his brothers in the Ganzter settlement. Thus, it is clear that Jalpa Tudu was already a recorded tenant of the suit property. This means he had already inherited the property. When he was already a recorded tenant and inherited the property, in that case there cannot be reversion.

8. The appellants-defendants are trying to dis-inherit the plaintiff from his parental property by virtue of the marriage of their ancestor, the recorded tenant. This Court cannot accept the said argument. When the suit property was already inherited by Jalpa Tudu and the name was recorded in Ganzter settlement in his name then there is no question of reversing the title of the property. The defendants have not proved any customary law or any law which suggests that once the land is already inherited by Jalpa Tudu and his name is recorded in Ganzter settlement, then by virtue of marriage, the land will revert to other co-sharers. Moreover, the story of Ghardamad has been disbelieved by both the courts.

9. Further the settlement record is not a conclusive proof of title or ownership of the property. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the suit property is joint property and therefore, Jalpa Tudu and his successor has also right, title and interest over the suit property and that being so, the partition suit is maintainable. The main point, which has been raised by the appellant as to whether Jalpa Tudu became a Ghardamad or not? This fact has been answered concurrently by both the courts below answering that Jalpa Tudu was not a Ghardamad. This question is absolutely a question of fact.

10. Thus, after going through the impugned judgment, I find that there is no substantial question of law, which needs to be decided in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Anu/-C.P.-2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)