Kailash Yadav And Others vs Masomat Sita Devi And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 6066 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Kailash Yadav And Others vs Masomat Sita Devi And Others on 23 September, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                   S.A. No. 422 of 2018

            Kailash Yadav and others             ...     ...     Appellants
                                    Versus
            Masomat Sita Devi and others ...              ... Respondents
                                    ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellants : Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate : Mr. Munnal Lal Yadav, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv N. Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Sushant Kumar Sinha, Advocate

---

13/23.09.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.

2. It has been submitted that the learned Trial Court while decreeing the suit had recorded a finding that the land at plot no. 381 remained with Meghan Mahto who was the father of plaintiff no. 1 and grandfather of plaintiff nos. 2 and 3.

3. He submits that a chart was prepared with respect to the various area of sale deeds and the learned trial court came to a definite finding that the table made it clear that the total area of plot no. 381 was not sold to Bhagwat Prasad Singh and the plaintiff was claiming 56 ½ decimal of plot no. 381 leaving half decimal on the basis of calculation. The learned court had also held that the total area of Khata No. 21 sold by Bhagwat Prasad Singh came to 3.98 acres actually and not 3.99 ½ acres as claimed by the plaintiffs and the table shows that total remaining land of Meghan mahto was 4.01 ½ acres i.e. 1 ½ decimals more than his share.

4. The learned counsel submits that the finding of the learned Trial Court was reversed by the learned 1st Appellate Court.

5. He submits that the following substantial question of law arise for consideration by this court which are as under:-

(i) Whether the learned 1st appellate Court while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court also failed to appreciate that vendor of the defendant no. 1 Randhir Kumar Singh (Defendant No. 2) had no right, title and interest to execute sale deed No. 4368 dated 19.10.1987 (Ext.

1/C) and suit land was never sold by Ramdeo Mahto to his father Bhagwat Prasad Singh.

(ii) Whether the learned 1st Appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment and decree also failed to notice that defendants did not produce any partition document which is the basis of their claim for execution of Sale Deed No. 4368/89 dated 19.10.1987 (Ext. 1/C) has rightly noticed by the learned Trial Court while decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs."

6. This appeal is admitted for final hearing on the aforesaid substantial questions of law.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents is present. He accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents. He submits that he has already entered appearance by filing Vakalatnama.

8. Call for the records from the concerned courts.

9. Post this case on 17.11.2025 under the heading for 'Hearing'.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit