Jharkhand High Court
Devendra Nath Pramanick (Thakur) Son Of ... vs Ramesh Chandra Pramanick on 11 July, 2025
2025:JHHC:18777
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No.47 of 2011
------
[Against the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2011, decree signed on
25.02.2011 passed in Title (P) Appeal No.27 of 2009 by learned District
Judge, Sahibganj whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree passed
by learned trial court in T.S. No.34 of 2006 has been confirmed]
------
1 Devendra Nath Pramanick (Thakur) son of late Chhatu
Thakur, resident of Pokharia, P.S.-Borio (Jirwabari, P.O. Borio,
Sub-division & District-Sahibganj
.... .... .... Plaintiff/Appellant
Versus
1. Ramesh Chandra Pramanick, son of Chhatu Lal Pramanick
Thakur, resident of village-Pokharia, P.O.-Borio, P.s.-Borio
(Jirwabari), Sub-division & District-Sahibganj
.... .... Defendant/ Respondent
2. Shankar Mandal, son of Mandal, resident of Kishan Prasad,
P.O.-Makhmalpur, P.S.-Sahibganj(M), District-Sahibganj
3. Sakaldip Mandal, son of late Mahendra Prasad Mandal,
resident of-Pokharia, P.O. Borio, P.S.-Borio (J), District-
Sahibganj
4. Bigan Ram son of late Rambriksh Ram, resident of-Pokharia,
P.O.-Borio, P.S.-Borio (J), District-Sahibganj
5. Ramkhelawan Sah, son of late Sukar Sah, resident of-Borio (J),
P.O. Borio, P.S.-Borio, District-Sahibganj
6. Awadesh Yadav, son of late Rammillan Yadav, resident of-
Pokharia, P.O.-Borio, P.S. Borio(J), District-Sahibganj
7. Manti Devi wife of Ramprit Yadav, resident of-Pokharia,
P.O.-Borio, P.S.-Borio(J), District-Sahibganj
8.Suwendra Prasad Mandal @ Suwendra Pd. Mandal, son of
late Basudeo Prasad Mandal, resident of Petarwar, Ranchi, P.O.
& P.S.-Petarwar, posted as Range Officer, Dist. Ranchi
9. Rasbehari Yadav, son of - Rupnarayan Yadav, resident of -
Mahadeo Thakur, P.O.-Sadipur, P.S.-Pirpainti colony,
Bhagalpur .... .... Performa Defendants/ Respondents
S.A. No.47 of 2011
1
2025:JHHC:18777
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Sunil Kumar Mahto, Advocate
Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate
Ms. M. Khatoon, Advocate
For Resp. Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5 : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Swami Nath Pd. Roy, Advocate
For Resp. Nos.6 & 7 : Mr. Aman Shekhar, Advocate
------
CAV On 02/07/2025 Pronounced On 11/ 07 /2025
1. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant second appeal is preferred against the judgment and
decree dated 19.02.2011 and decree signed on 25.02.2011passed
by learned District Judge, Sahibganj in Title (P) Appeal No.27 of
2009 confirming the judgment dated 25.11.2008 and decree dated
17.12.2008 passed by learned Subordinate Judge-III, Sahibganj in
Title Partition Suit No.34 of 2006, whereby and whereunder the
partition suit of the plaintiff was decreed partly and the learned
trial court as well as learned appellate court did not found the
2025:JHHC:18777
land pertaining to Jamabandi Nos.43, 60, 114, 117 and 124 to be
joint property of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 inherited from
their father, Chhatu Lal Thakur.
3. The appellant/plaintiff instituted the partition suit against his
own brother (the principal defendant No.1) and others for
partition of the joint family properties mentioned in Scheduled A
to the plaint comprising Jamabandi Nos.43, 45, 60, 92, 114, 117,
124, 180, 257 and 280 situated at Mauza Pokharia within P.S.
Borio(J), District-Sahibganj. Learned trial court after discussing
in detail the entire oral as well as documentary evidence i.e.
record of rights(khatiyan) arrived at conclusion that the land
pertaining to J.B. Nos. 43, 60, 114, 117 and 124 has not been
proved to be owned by Chhatu Lal Thakur, the father of the
plaintiff and principal defendant and cannot be subject matter of
partition.
The appellate court in Title (P) Appeal No.27 of 2009
also concurred with the findings of the trial court and concluded
that the aforesaid land does not belong to the joint property
between the plaintiff and principal defendant. It was further held
that properties pertaining to J.B. No.114, Plot Nos.172 and 177
are Khasmahal property, which cannot be sublet or transferred
or partitioned without sanction/permission of concerned
2025:JHHC:18777
Deputy Commissioner of the District. Moreover, no
documentary evidence was adduced showing the above lands to
be joint property of the plaintiff and principal defendant.
Accordingly, the appeal was also dismissed.
4. The present appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated
01.07.2019 on following substantial questions of law:
(i) Whether the trial court as well as appellate
court have committed illegality in not
partitioning the land as contained in Jamabandi
No.114 when the defendants themselves had
admitted in written statements that the land of
Jamabandi No.114 belongs to the plaintiff and
defendants and half of the land which falls
under the share of the defendants has been sold
by him.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant pressing the above substantial
question of law contended that after preparation of preliminary
decree, he has filed an application before the concerned trial
court under section 152 of C.P.C. for adding the land pertaining
to J.B. No.114, which was rejected on the ground that the
findings have been recorded on merits showing that the land to
be not a joint property. It is further submitted that the principal
2025:JHHC:18777
defendant in his written statement as well as oral evidence
before the court has categorically admitted that the land
pertaining to J.B. No.114, Plot Nos.172 and 177 are also joint
property inherited from the father and defendant No.1 has sold
out his half share, therefore, the remaining half share belongs to
the plaintiff/appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgement and
decree passed by both the courts below is fit to be set aside
allowing this appeal.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has
submitted that no documentary evidence has been adduced even
the sale deed executed by principal defendant has not been
brought on record. Therefore, the concrete findings of both the
courts do not require any interference and this appeal is fit to be
dismissed.
7. I have gone through the judgment of learned trial court as well
as learned first appellate court and found that the both the courts
below have recorded reason findings on the basis of evidence
adduced by the parties that the land pertaining to J.B. No.114
and some others were not belonging to Chhatu Lal Thakur i.e.
the father of the plaintiff and principal defendant No.1. Before
the appellate court, the matter was agitated by the appellant in
respect of the properties, which has been left from partition due
2025:JHHC:18777
to not being joint ancestral property of the parties. The appellate
court on the basis of re-appreciation of evidence adduced by the
parties dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant.
8. It appears that the plaintiff/appellant insists on inclusion of the
land pertaining to J.B. No.114, Plot Nos.172 and 177 only on the
basis of admission of his brother that he has sold ½ of the share.
It is also admitted that the said property belonging to Khasmahal
(government land) and the alleged sale deed executed by the
brother of the plaintiff/appellant has also not been brought on
record. It further appears that mere admission of the principal
defendant that he has sold ½ of the share property, which was a
joint family property cannot form basis of decree in the suit in
respect of the said land for partition.
Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a
judgment passed by Hon'ble Orissa High Court, Cuttack in
Nirmal Chandra Panigrahi & Ors. Vs. State of Odisha and Ors.,
passed in W.P.(C) No.15300 of 2019 dated 17.05.2021 regarding
sublease and partition of Khasmahal, (government property) but
has failed to produce the manual governing Khasmahal Property
in the State of Jharkhand. It is not disputed that any transaction
in respect of Khasmahal property by the lessee, permission has
2025:JHHC:18777
to be obtained from the concerned Deputy Commissioner of the
district.
9. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I do not find any
substance in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the
appellant as well as no merits in the substantial question of law
formulated in this second appeal. This appeal appears to be
devoid of merits. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
10. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
11. Let the copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be
sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Date: 11/ 07/2025
Pappu/- A.F.R.
