Jharkhand High Court
Degan Mahto vs (A). Lakhiya Devi on 30 June, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:17240
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 1449 of 2018
-----
1. Degan Mahto
2. Darshan Mahto
3. 3(a). Sita Devi, wife of late Ganpat Mahto
3(b). Yogendra Yadav, son of late Ganpat Mahto
3(c). Radha Kumari, daughter of late Ganpat Mahto
3(d). Rakesh Kumar Yadav, son of late Ganpat Mahto
Sl No. 3(c) and 3(d) being minor represented through their mother,
namely, Sita Devi.
Sl No. 3(a) to 3(d) are residents of village Holamgara
3(e). Bajauti Devi, daughter of late Ganpat Mahto, wife of Uday Yadav,
resident of village-Lavanpur, P.O. Unta, P.S.+District Chatra.
3(f). Rinkee Devi, daughter of late Ganpat Mahto, wife of Ram Yadav,
resident of village-Belhariya, Naya Bigha, P.O. & P.S. Tikari, District
Gaya, Bihar.
4. Tula Mahto
Petitioners No. 1, 2 and 4 are sons of Late Bihari Mahto, resident of
Village- Holamgara, P.O. & P.S. Chatra, District- Chatra (Jharkhand).
... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. 1(a). Lakhiya Devi, wife of late Tilak Mahto
1(b). Arjun Yadav, son of late Tilak Mahto
1(c). Sanjay Yadav, son of of late Tilak Mahto
1(d). Baleshwar Yadav, son of late Tilak Mahto
Sl No. 1(a) to 1(d) all residents of village- Holamgara, Khurd, P.O.
Unta, P.S.+District Chatra.
1(e). Sano Devi, wife of Niranjan Yadav, daughter of late Tilak Mahto,
resident of village- Tudag, P.S.- Chatra Tapaz, District-Gaya.
1(f). Kunti Devi, wife of Yugal Yadav, daughter of late Tilak Mahto,
resident of Village-Tikari, P.O. Chatra, District- Chatra
2. Muneshwar Mahto son of Late Chaturi Mahto.
3. Shital Mahto son of Late Chaturi Mahto.
Respondents No. 2 and 3, both are residents of Village Holamgara, P.O.
and P.S. Chatra, District Chatra, (Jharkhand).
4. Indradeo Yadav son of Jugeshwar Yadav @ Mahto, resident of Khirgara,
P.O. and P.S. Rajpur, District Chatra, (Jharkhand).
5. Sumani Devi daughter of Late Chaturi Mahto, wife of Late Tulsi Yadav,
resident of Khirgara, P.O. and P.S. Rajpur, District Chatra, (Jharkhand).
6. Kaushalya Devi daughter of Late Chaturi Mahto, wife of Rameshwar
Yadav, resident of Village Barabagi (Jori), P.O. and P.S. Rajpur, District
Chatra, (Jharkhand).
7. Rajiya Devi daughter of Late Bihari Mahto, wife of Suraj Yadav,
resident of Village Ramtunda, P.O. and P.S. Chatra, District Chatra,
(Jharkhand).
8. Sukri Devi wife of Bineshwar Yadav, resident of Village Ramtunda,
P.O. and P.S. Chatra, District Chatra, (Jharkhand).
2025:JHHC:17240
9. Gangiya Devi wife of Lakshmi Yadav ® Laxmi Yadav, resident of
Village Chhewta, P.O. and P.S. Rajpur, District Chatra,
(Jharkhand).
10. Arbind Yadav son of Dashrath Yaday, resident of Village Dahuri, P.O.
and P.S. Chatra, District Chatra, (Jharkhand).
11. Shobhwa @ Shohwa Devi wife of Dashrath Yadav, resident of Village
Obra, P.O. and P.S. Chatra, District Chatra, (Jharkhand).
12. Dukhani Devi wife of Late Bihari Mahto, resident of Village
Holamgara, P.O. and P.S. Chatra, District Chatra.
... .... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Satish Kr. Keshri, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate
-----
15/ Dated : 30.06.2025
1. The petitioners are the defendants against whom Original Partition Suit
No. 14/1996 was decreed vide judgment dated 23.06.2003 and decree
dated 14.07.2003.
2. Against the said judgment and decree Title Appeal No. 13/2003 was
preferred by the Petitioners which got dismissed on 21.09.2004.
3. The Second Appeal arising out of the same was also dismissed on
20.06.2009 by this Court in Second Appeal No. 611 of 2004.
4. The petitioners/defendants moved to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
C.C. No. 8602 of 2013 which also got dismissed on 22.04.2013.
5. The plaintiffs have still not received the fruits of the decree and this
writ petition has been filed in 2018 by the defendants/judgment debtors
with a prayer that the order dated 20.02.2018 passed in Misc. Case No.
18/2016 arising out of Original Partition Suit No. 14/1996 for
preparation of final decree be dismissed.
6. In effect, after the preliminary decree has attained finality, the
petitioners seek to challenge the drawing of final decree.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs are not the
coparceners and the heirs and descendants of the joint family. The
genealogy, which the petitioners claim and is part of the preliminary
decree, is not correct. It is further submitted that Chaturi Mahto is not
the coparcener and has no share in the joint family property. Learned
counsel for the petitioners has produced certain documents in support
of his contention.
2025:JHHC:17240
8. The main contention of the petitioners is that the plaintiffs-respondents
by misleading the Court on genealogy of the parties have obtained the
decree. In this regard, reference is made to the certified copy of
Register-II to dispute the genealogy in the preliminary decree.
9. It is argued that the Judgment and decree were obtained by playing
fraud.
10. The matter for consideration is when the judgment and preliminary
decree in a partition suit has attained finality, can it be assailed to have
been obtained by fraud, by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court?
11. Answer can be an emphatic no.
12. It is surprising that after the preliminary decree has attained its finality,
the defendants have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the Judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court. Genealogy constitutes parts of the decree
which has been affirmed in appeal; therefore, this issue cannot be
reopened.
13. In any case, after the judgment and decree has attained finality, the
same cannot be assailed on ground of it being vitiated by fraud in the
execution proceeding.
14. Learned Trial Court has by a detailed order and by assigning sufficient
reason has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioners.
15. This is yet another frivolous piece of litigation, challenging the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court which has attained
finality up-to the Hon'ble Apex Court. In such circumstance, this writ
petition is not, at all, maintainable.
Writ petition stands dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-. Pending
I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Vedanti/AKT
