Hawru Oraon vs Sushil Oraon And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 6726 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Hawru Oraon vs Sushil Oraon And Others on 6 November, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                        S. A. No. 446 of 2017

          Hawru Oraon       ...      ...     Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant
                            Versus
       Sushil Oraon and Others
                   ... ...          Defendants/Respondents/Respondents
                            ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

    For the Appellant       : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate
                            : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Advocate
    For the Respondents     :
                            ---

15/06.11.2025

1. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the genealogical table as mentioned in internal page No.3 of the trial court's judgment and has submitted that the case was filed stating that Hella Oraon was the common ancestor who had only two biological son namely Sarua Oraon and Dhuchua Oraon and one Hawaru Oraon who was not a biological son and was not entitled to inherit any property of Hella Oraon.

2. He submits that the property was recorded in the name of Sarua Oraon and Dhuchua Oraon and the name of Hawaru Oraon was not mentioned in the suit land. The learned counsel submits that the plaintiffs were the descendants of Sarua Oraon. Sarua Oraon had filed the suit and after his death he was substituted. He has further submitted that the courts have held that Hawaru Oraon was full brother of Sarua Oraon and consequently, Hella Oraon had three sons namely Sarua Oraon, Dhuchua Oraon and Hawaru Oraon.

3. Learned counsel submit that in the aforesaid factual background the descendants of Sarua Oraon were entitled to atleast 1/3 rd share of the entire suit property, but the learned court had dismissed the suit in entirety. The learned 1st appellate court had confirmed the judgment and therefore, the substantial question of law be framed as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for at least 1/3rd share of the suit property Schedule A and B both.

4. Considering the aforesaid submission, this appeal is admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:-

"Whether the suit could have been dismissed in entirety without considering the claim of 1/3rd share of the plaintiffs over the suit land?"

5. Issue notice to the respondents through the concerned police station for which requisites be filed within a period of one week.

6. The records of this case has already been received.

7. Post this case on 26th November, 2025 in the supplementary cause list.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 06.11.2025 Rakesh/-