Jharkhand High Court
Jainandan Singh And Others vs Prabhuwan Singh And Others on 17 November, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 195 of 2018
Jainandan Singh and others
... ... Defendants/Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Prabhuwan Singh and others
... ... .. Plaintiffs/Appellants/Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate
---
17/17.11.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that suit
seeking partition filed on behalf of the plaintiffs was dismissed by
observing numerous materials on record including exhibit-J series
which were relating to inter se transfer amongst the family members
of the partition to the suit and the learned trial court held that on the
basis of oral and documentary evidence that there was previous
partition and the suit seeking partition was dismissed. The learned
counsel submits that the learned 1st appellate Court has quoted the
findings in connection with exhibit J-series in paragraph 27 of the
appellate court's judgement. But while reversing the finding of the
learned trial court, there is no independent discussions of the materials
on record. The learned counsel has also submitted that the learned 1 st
appellate court has primarily relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Most. Marjadi Devi versus
Jagarnath Singh reported in AIR 1983 Patna 129 to reopen the
partition by observing that there was no partition by metes and bounds
but has misapplied the said judgment in as much as in the said
judgment, it was clearly observed that the plaintiff has to plead about
the previous partition and specifically plead that as per the previous
partition, there was no partition by metes and bounds or there was
unequal partition.
3. He has referred to suggested substantial question of law no. (a),
(b) and (e) and has submitted that once the second appeal is admitted
for hearing it will be certainly opened to this court to deal with the
materials on record and come to finding as to whether there was any
previous partition.
4. Considering the submissions, this appeal is Admitted for final
hearing on the following substantial question of law:-
(A) Whether in absence of any pleading of the plaintiffs with
regard to "unequal Partition", reliance made by learned
appellate court on judgment reported in 1983 AIR Patna
129 (Most. Marjadi Devi versus Jagarnath Singh) was
justified?
(B) Whether the learned Appellate Court being final court of
fact and law was duty bound to meet reasons assigned by
the learned Trial Court with respect to its finding on
previous partition before reversing the judgment and
decree?
(C) Whether while reversing the judgment and decree passed by
the learned Trial Court, the learned Appellate Court failed
to take into account Ext. J to J-10 (transactions and inter-se
transaction), which are strong proof for previous partition,
as held by the learned Trial Court and came to erroneous
finding?
5. Issue notice to the respondent nos. 1 t\o 8 for which requisites
etc. under speed post must be filed within a period of ten days from
today.
6. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants
that arising out of the same judgment, S.A. No. 198 of 2018 filed by
Ambika Singh and Others, has been admitted vide order dated
10.12.2024 and the records have also been called for in the said case.
7. This matter is to be heard along with S.A. No. 198 of 2018.
8. Post both the cases (S.A. No. 195 of 2018 and S.A. No. 198 of
2018) on 18.12.2025.
9.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
