Jharkhand High Court
Dwijendra Singh vs Shantobala @ Shanti Bala Devi Wife Of ... on 30 June, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2025:JHHC:17095
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S. A. No. 360 of 2016
Dwijendra Singh, Son of late Mahadeo Singh, resident of Village
Jeolmari, P.O. Bishanpur, P.S. Barharwa, District- Sahibganj.
... ... Plaintiff/Appellant No.2/Appellant
Versus
1. Shantobala @ Shanti Bala Devi wife of Ishan Chandra Mandal,
and daughter of Satish Chandra Singh, resident of Hiranpur,
Gopalpur, P.O. Dangapara, P.S. Hiranpur, District- Pakur (Deleted
vide order dated 23.06.2025).
1.a. Mantu Kumar Saha, Son of Isaan Chandra Saha, Resident of
Village Gopal Pahadi, P.O. Dangalpara, P.S. Hiranpur, District-
Pakur (Jharkhand).
... ... Defendant/Respondent No.1/ Respondent
2. Tarun Singh, Son of late Mahadeo Singh.
3. Chandra Mohan Singh, Son of late Mahadeo Singh.
4. Triloke Singh, Son of late Mahadeo Singh.
5. Panchanand Singh, Son of late Mahadeo Singh.
6. Janardan Singh, Son of late Mahadeo Singh.
Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 resident of Village- Jeolmari, P.O.
Bishanpur, P.S. Barharwa, District-Sahibganj.
... ... Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 to 6/Appellant Nos.1 and
3 to 6/ Proforma Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Gautam Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Praveen Shankar Prasad, Advocate
: Md. Faiyaj Alam, Advocate
---
22/30.06.2025
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.
2. This appeal has been filed against judgment dated 11 th April,
2016 (decree signed on 18.04.2016) by learned District & Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal in Title Appeal No. 45 of 2009 whereby
the appeal has been dismissed. The trial court judgment is dated 31 st
July, 2009 (decree signed on 12.08.2009) passed by the learned Sub
Judge-I, Rajmahal, District-Sahibganj in Title Suit No. 09 of 2001
whereby the suit was dismissed.
2025:JHHC:17095
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
appellant is the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by learned trial
court and the judgement has been affirmed by the learned 1st appellate
court.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the suit
was filed with respect to two plots of property and for declaration that
plaintiffs were having exclusive right, title and interest over the suit
property and also for conformation of their possession and that the
defendant had no right to deal with the two plots of the property
involved in the case.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
judgments passed by the learned trial court and the learned 1st
appellate court are perverse inasmuch as the learned courts have not
considered the fact that the partition suit filed by the mother of the
defendant being Title Suit No. 50 of 1974 was dismissed on
13.07.1985 and thereafter she died in the year 1996.
6. He has submitted that Khukhi Devi (second wife of Sitesh
Chandra Singh) has a daughter who was sole defendant in the case and
after death of Sitesh Chandra Singh in the year 1940, Khukhi Devi had
left the matrimonial house with all her belongings and she had
relinquished all her rights in the landed property in favour of the
plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were in possession of the property as
exclusive owner. The learned counsel submits that this aspect of the
matter has not been properly considered by both the courts and
accordingly this appeal be admitted by framing substantial question of
law.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court
finds that the specific case of the plaintiffs was that they had inherited
the suit land which stood recorded in the name of Harisunder Singh,
who was the elder brother of grandfather of the appellant and the
grandfather of the appellant, Sitesh Chandra Singh had purchased the
property. Sitesh Chandra Singh married Mahamuni Devi and had one
son namely Mahadeo Singh, who was the father of the appellant. After
2025:JHHC:17095
death of Mahamuni Devi, Sitesh Chandra Singh married second time
with Khukhi Devi and the defendant is the daughter of the Khukhi
Devi.
8. It was the specific case of the plaintiffs that in the year 1940
Sitesh Chandra Singh died and thereafter mother of the defendant left
the husband's house and relinquished her right including right with
respect to the immovable property in favour of the father of the
plaintiffs and consequently, the suit property remained exclusively in
the possession of late father of the plaintiffs. Later on, the mother of
the defendant on instigation of the enemy of the plaintiffs, illegally
claimed share of the property for which a Panchayati had taken place
on request of the mother of the defendant and late father of the
plaintiffs. The Panches held that the mother of the defendant was not
entitled for partition, but as special concession allowed two plots
being plot Nos. 479 and 559 to her to enjoy the same till her death and
after her death, the property would revert back to late father of the
plaintiffs. The mother of the defendant enjoyed the two plots, but in
1974 she had filed partition suit being T.S. No. 50 of 1974. The suit
was sent to the Settlement Officer under regulation-II of 1872 and
tried by the Settlement Officer and was finally dismissed on
13.07.1985.
9. The mother of the defendant died in the year 1996 and the two
plots given to her for life, reverted back to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
later on initiated Miscellaneous Case bearing No. 790 of 2001 in the
Court of Assistant Settlement Officer for inclusion of plaintiffs' name
after deleting the name of Khukhi Devi and her name was deleted vide
order dated 13.02.2002 and the name of the present plaintiffs was
ordered to be entered.
10. It was asserted by the plaintiffs that the defendant, daughter of
Khukhi Devi, was trying to sell the two plots to one Kulesh Karmkar
and therefore, the cause of action arose on 25.03.2001 when the
defendant made contract for selling two plots. The plaintiffs sought a
2025:JHHC:17095
decree of injunction restraining the defendant for transferring the suit
land and for confirming the possession of the plaintiffs over the same.
11. The defendant filed written statement and asserted that the
defendant has to be one of the legal heirs of Sitesh Chandra Singh and
on his death all the properties were inherited and succeeded by
Mahadeo Singh (Son of first wife) and second wife Khukhi Devi
jointly and consequently the share of Khukhi Devi fell to the share of
her daughter who was the sole defendant. It was also asserted that
Sitesh Chandra Singh had left about 26 bigha of land and it was
denied that the plaintiffs were the rightful owner and the suit property
fell in the share of Sitesh Chandra Singh on partition between him and
Umesh Chandra Singh.
12. It was also asserted that the father of the plaintiffs namely
Mahadeo Singh never came in exclusive possession of the suit
property and the mother of the defendant was in possession of the suit
land with other property left by her husband and the entire property
remained under joint ownership in possession of Mahadeo Singh and
the mother of the defendant. The panchayati did not partition the
property by meets and bound but only for the sake of convenience.
13. The learned trial court framed the following issues: -
I. Whether the suit is maintainable or not?
II. Whether the plaintiffs have got any valid cause of action
for the present suit?
III. Whether the suit is barred by res-judicata?
IV. Whether the plaintiffs have got any right, title, interest and
possession over the suit property?
V. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of
permanent injunction restraining the defendant from
transferring the suit property?
VI. To what relief if any the plaintiffs are entitled to?
14. The learned trial court inter alia held that the plaintiffs had not
been able to prove the cause of action for filing the suit and the suit
itself was not maintainable. However, the main issue was in relation to
issue No. III and IV. The learned trial court considered the issue No.
III vide paragraph 11 and issue No. IV in detail vide paragraph 9 of
2025:JHHC:17095
the judgment and decided the same against the plaintiffs and
consequently, the issue No. V was also decided against the plaintiffs.
15. The learned 1st appellate court has considered the evidence and
has clearly recorded that PW-1 in his cross examination stated that
they have not given any share to the defendant nor do they intend to
give any share to her in their ancestor property in future and further in
cross examination this witness has stated that he has not placed any
document with respect to the relinquishment of the right by the mother
of the defendant. He has stated that the plaintiffs owned and possessed
the suit property since 1997 and admittedly the mother of the
defendant died in the year 1996.
16. The learned 1st appellate court further recorded that the
plaintiffs have not filed any document relating to any earlier partition
and also the order dated 13.07.1985 passed by Assistant Settlement
Officer dismissing the suit for partition was not filed. Exhibit-5 filed
on behalf of the plaintiffs merely showed that they have paid revenue
with respect to the land pertaining to Mouza-Batail area 1 bigha 3
katha and land of Mouza-Bhimpara area 3 bigha 3 katha and 7 dhurs
and Exhibit-2 entering the name of Sri Sitesh Chandra Singh,
grandfather and father of the appellant/respondent. Exhibit-4 shows
that the land of Batail mouza area 1 bigha 3 katha was purchased by
Sitesh Chandra Singh and Exhibit-3 merely reflected an order relating
to possession. It was further observed that no reliance can be placed
merely on pleadings without cogent evidence. The learned 1 st
appellate court has recorded that so far as Hindu Succession Act is
concerned, the defendant was entitled to claim partition irrespective of
whether she acquired property before or after commencement of the
Act.
17. The learned 1st appellate court ultimately held that it transpired
that the plaintiffs could not establish their exclusive right, title and
interest over the suit land and the defendant, who is the daughter of
Sitesh Chandra Singh, the common ancestor of the parties, cannot be
deprived of her right, title and interest of property in inheritance and in
2025:JHHC:17095
absence of plaintiff's ability to establish their case the appeal was
dismissed.
18. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned
judgment passed by both, the learned trial court and the learned 1st
appellate court. This Court is of the view that the previous partition
was never proved and the judgement of alleged dismissal of the suit
filed by the mother of the defendant was also not proved as the
judgement was not exhibited. The plea of relinquishment by the
mother of the defendant as pleaded by the plaintiffs was also not
proved. The learned courts after scrutinizing the materials on record
have passed well-reasoned judgements based on the materials on
record holding that the plaintiffs do not have the exclusive right, title
and interest over the suit property. No perversity as such has been
pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants in the matter of
appreciation of evidences on record. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, this Court finds that no question of law, much less, any
substantial question of law is involved in this 2nd appeal. Accordingly,
this 2nd appeal is dismissed.
19. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.
20. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned
court through "FAX/e-mail".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Rakesh/-
