Jharkhand High Court
Urmila Devi & Anr vs Jagmaniya Devi & Ors on 6 October, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 542 of 2018
Urmila Devi & Anr. ... ... Appellants
Versus
Jagmaniya Devi & Ors. ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Ganesh Ram, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, Advocate
: Mr. Ram Kinkar, advocate
---
09/06.10.2025 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the order
dated 21.07.2025 wherein the substantial question of law has been
framed as under:
"Whether the learned First Appellate Court was justified in
holding that the registered gift deed No.2285 dated 10.06.99
in favour of defendant No.1 was forged and void ab initio?"
3. With respect to the party position, the learned counsel for the
appellants has referred to the trial court's judgment at internal page 2
and has submitted that common ancestor was Kauleshar Mahto who
had two sons, Lalu Mahto and Jhari Mahto. Jhari Mahto had two sons,
Sukan Mahto and Ugan Mahto. Sukan Mahto died in the year 1991
and the plaintiff is Ugan Mahto. He further submits that Defendant no.
1 is Urmila Devi who is daughter of Sukan Mahto and defendant no. 2
is Banshi Yadav who is husband of the defendant no. 1.
4. The learned counsel has further submitted that as per the
genealogical table, Lalu Mahto had three sons, Lochan, Palatu and
Jagarnath and that Lochan and Palatu had died issueless, while
Jagarnath Mahto, as per the plaint, died on 04.05.1999. He submits
that the defendants are the appellants before this Court and as per the
specific case of the defendants, Jagarnath Mahto had expired on
04.08.1999 and not on 04.05.1999 as claimed by the plaintiff and the
entire answer to the substantial question of law is dependent upon the
date of death of Jagarnath Mahto.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants, while placing the
judgment of the learned trial court, has referred to the case of the
plaintiff and has submitted that as per the plaintiff, wife of Jagarnath
Mahto pre-deceased Jagarnath Mahto who died issueless.
Consequently, Jagarnath Mahto started living with Ugan Mahto and
therefore, there was a re-union in the family amongst Jagarnath
Mahto, Sukan Mahto and Ugan Mahto. As per the plaint, the deed of
gift was fraudulently executed in the name of Urmila Devi, daughter
of Sukan Mahto by impersonating Jagarnath Mahto and such averment
has been made on the basis that Jagarnath Mahto had died on
04.05.1999 and therefore, he could not have executed the registered
gift deed on 10.06.1999 in favour of Urmila Devi.
6. The learned counsel further submits that as per the case of the
defendants, the properties of Ugan Mahto and Sugan Mahto were
never partitioned by metes and bounds and it was false to say that
Jagarnath Mahto, after death of his wife, was residing with Ugan
Mahto. As per the written statement, the fact was that Jagarnath Mahto
was residing in his house and cultivating his entire land separately. It
was stated that Jagarnath Mahto during the lifetime of his wife got the
defendant no. 1 Urmila Devi in his family and she served to them and
when she became marriageable, Jagarnath Mahto got her married with
defendant no. 2. After marriage, both defendant nos. 1 and 2 started
residing with Jagarnath Mahto as his daughter and son-in-law and
both started looking after his affairs and cultivating the land belonging
to him. It was specifically asserted in the written statement that
Jagarnath Mahto died on 04.08.1999 while residing with the
defendants and he was never in jointness with Ugan Mahto. It was
also asserted that the last rites of Jagarnath Mahto was performed by
defendant nos. 1 and 2. It was also asserted that the deed of gift was
executed by Jagarnath Mahto himself on 10.06.1999 who appeared
before the registry and he made his statement before the Registrar.
The deed of gift was duly attested by the attesting witnesses and
accordingly, the gift deed was a genuine document. It was also
asserted that the Jagarnath Mahto had also executed a deed duly
attested by Jitan Ram, Notary Public, Garhwa on 22.07.1999 and the
date of death claimed by the plaintiff as 04.05.1999 was specifically
denied. It was asserted by the defendants that the date of death of
Jagarnath Mahto was 04.08.1999 and therefore, the gift deed executed
by Jagarnath Mahto was valid.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants has thereafter submitted
that the learned trial court did not return any finding with respect to
the specific date of death of Jagarnath Mahto. He has also submitted
that the plaintiff claimed that Jagarnath Mahto had expired on
04.05.1999 and the specific assertion was made to that effect, but they
failed to prove this fact. On the other hand, the defendants claimed
that the date of death of Jagarnath Mahto was 04.08.1999 and even the
defendants could not prove this fact before the Court. The learned
counsel has submitted that in case where the plaintiff has made a
specific assertion regarding the date of death, it was for the plaintiff to
prove it. Over and above this fact, the learned counsel has submitted
that the gift deed was admittedly a registered document and there is a
presumption in law with respect to its due execution and accordingly,
he has referred to section 34 of the Registration Act.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants has then referred to the
judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court and has submitted
that the learned 1st appellate court has specifically recorded that none
of the parties have been able to prove the date of death of Jagarnath
Mahto. However, while considering the gift deed, the learned 1 st
appellate court recorded that the original gift deed was produced
before the 1st appellate court and was marked exhibit-I, but there was
no convincing reason for not filing the original deed of gift before the
learned trial court. However, the learned 1st appellate court was of the
view that the attesting witnesses to the gift deed having not been
produced before the court, mere exhibiting of the original gift deed
was not sufficient.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the certified
copy of the gift deed from the registry office was produced before the
court and in view of the presumption in connection with registered
document, the learned court was not justified in holding that the gift
deed was invalid.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants has also referred to
section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and has submitted
that all the ingredients of transfer through gift have been satisfied in
the case. The gift deed being registered document and in view of the
fact that the date of death of Jagarnath Mahto was not proved by either
party, the learned court was not justified in holding that the gift deed
was not valid in the eyes of law. The learned counsel has also referred
to section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to submit that except in
case of 'Will', when the document is registered then there is no need
to call the witnesses to prove the same.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that he shall
advance his arguments tomorrow.
12. Post this case tomorrow i.e., on 07th October 2025 to be taken
up as the first case at 10:30 a.m.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
06.10.2025
Pankaj
