[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Birsi Dhangarin And Others vs Mostt. Puno @ Mostt. Puro And Others on 4 December, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 106 of 2024
Birsi Dhangarin and Others ... ... Appellants
Versus
Mostt. Puno @ Mostt. Puro and Others... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Senior Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
: Mr. Suman Kr. Ghosh, Advocate
---
08/04.12.2025 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This 2nd appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree
dated 25.05.2024 (decree sealed and signed on 31.05.2024) passed by
learned Additional District Judge-I, Fast Track Court, Civil Court
(I/c), Sahibganj in Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2009 whereby the judgment
and decree dated 13.02.2009 (decree signed on 20.02.2009) passed by
learned Sub-Judge-I, Sahibganj in Title Suit No. 28 of 2006 has been
set-aside.
3. The suit was filed for the following reliefs:
"(i) It be declared that the plaintiffs are title holder of the
suit lands and that defendants are not title holders of the suit
lands.
(ii) Decree of recovery of possession be passed against the
defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs.
(iii) Decree of Mesne profit or compensation from the date of
dispossession to the date of recovery of possession.
(iv) Cost of the suit.
(v) Any other relief or reliefs is the court may deem fit and
proper."
4. The learned trial court held that the plaintiffs are entitled only
to half share of the suit property and observed that the title and
possession of the plaintiffs and the defendants with regard to the suit
property was still joint. The remaining half was allocated to the
defendants.
5. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that before the learned
1st appellate court, the defendants were the appellants and a cross-
appeal was also filed by the plaintiffs. The learned 1 st appellate court
dismissed the appeal of the defendants and further, the judgment and
decree passed by the learned trial court in Title Suit was set-aside and
the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs depriving the contesting
defendants who are the descendants of Sukra Dhangar. Sukra Dhangar
was maternal grand-father of the defendant no.1 and the husband of
defendant no.2, and they have been deprived of their property right by
referring to customary law whereby the daughters in the family are
deprived of inheritance.
6. This appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated
27.03.2025 on the following substantial questions of law:
"(1)Whether the findings of both the courts that the plaintiff's
are legal heirs of the recorded tenants is based on no evidence
since the deposition of PW 1 Dukhuwa Dhangar who also
happens to be the plaintiff no.1 and is claiming inheritance
from Thutha Dhangar who allegedly was the son of recorded
tenant Fagu Dhangar and the deposition of PW-2 Garju Turi as
regard the year of death of Thutha Dhangar is highly
contradictory - the former states he died in 1988 and the latter
states he died in 1980 or not?"
(2) Whether the findings of both the courts that the genealogy
given by the defendants appears to be nor reliable and
acceptable is perverse in light of the law settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in (1983) 3 SCC 118 as regard the cases where
conflicting genealogies are produced by the parties and the
genealogies are sought to be proved solely by oral evidences
especially when the PW-2 had no special means of knowledge
and did not disclose the source, time and circumstance under
which the knowledge, if any, was acquired, rather his statement
contradicted the statement of PW-1 and thus the knowledge, if
any, stood not clearly and conclusively proved as mandated in
the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court or not?"
7. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants has referred to the
genealogy as given by the plaintiffs and also the genealogy as given
by the defendants which have been mentioned in paragraph 3 and
paragraph 5 respectively of the appellate court's judgment.
8. It is not in dispute that the recorded tenant with respect to the
suit property was Fagu Dhangar and Sukra Dhangar was his son;
Dukhani Dhangrin was the daughter of Sukra Dhangar; defendant no.
1 namely, Birsi Dhangrin and wife of defendant no. 2, namely Pindri
Dhangarin, were the daughters of Dukhani Dhangrin.
9. The plaintiffs claimed that Sukra Dhangar had two full brothers
namely, Thutha Dhangar and Habru Dhangar; Habru Dhangar died
issueless and his line extinguished. They further claimed that Thutha
Dhangar had three sons namely, Ludo Dhangar, Banka Dhangar and
Guji Dhangar. The line of Guji Dhangar also extinguished. Further,
the plaintiff no. 3 was daughter-in-law of Ludo Dhangar and plaintiff
no. 1 was grand-son of Banka Dhangar and plaintiff no. 2 was son of
Banka Dhangar. Plaintiffs claimed that Banka Dhangar was son of
Thutha Dhangar.
10. The learned Senior counsel submits that it was the claim of the
plaintiffs that the descendants of Sukra Dhangar could not have
inherited the property as the defendants were the daughters in the
family and upon death of Sukra Dhangar, the entire property would be
inherited by Thutha Dhangar/his descendants.
11. The learned Senior counsel has further submitted that the
plaintiff no. 1 was P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 is an alien as he is not a member
of the family. He has also submitted that P.W. 2 does not have any
knowledge about genealogy, inasmuch as, he had stated that he does
not know Banka Dhangar who was father of Phuchu (plaintiff no. 2)
and grandfather of Dukhwa Dhangar (plaintiff no. 1). He has referred
to paragraph 6 of cross-examination of P.W. 2 and submits that since
P.W. 2 had no personal knowledge about the genealogy, his evidence
was not reliable. The learned Senior counsel has also submitted that
there is no documentary evidence placed on record in connection with
the genealogy. He submits that the evidence of P.W. 1 and D.W. 1
would be sufficient.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
learned 1st appellate court has committed an error on record by
observing that DW 1 in paragraph 12 of the cross-examination
admitted that her maternal father had two brothers Thutha Dhangar
and Habru Dhangar. He submits that the court while recording the
submissions at internal page 15 has rightly recorded that in paragraph
12, she had denied that her Nana had two more brothers namely
Thutha Dhangar and Habru Dhanger.
13. However, from perusal of the impugned judgement, it appears
that P.W. 1, who is plaintiff no.1 had stated in paragraph 12 of
examination-in-chief that Fagu had three sons Sukra, Thutha and
Habru, but the said witnesses have not been cross-examined on the
said point. At this, the learned counsel submits that he shall fully place
the evidence of P.W. 1 on the next date.
14. Post this case on 09.12.2025 at 10.30 a.m. to be taken up as the
first case.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj/Saurav
