[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Sarla Devi Wife Of Ghasi Ram Mahto vs Rajkishore Mahto Son Of Late Mohan ... on 15 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2026:JHHC:10612 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No. 83 of 2012
1. Sarla Devi wife of Ghasi Ram Mahto, resident of village Powadiri, P.O.
Reladih, Police Station Sonahatu, District Ranchi.
2. Guhi Ram Mahto son of Sawna Mahto, resident of village Powadiri, P.O.
Reladih, Police Station Sonahatu, District Ranchi.
3. Lakhi Mani Devi wife of Late Khetro Mohan Mahto
4. Nand Lal Mahto son of Late Khetro Mohan Mahto
5. Gokul Mahto son of Late Khetro Mohan Mahto
6. Anand Mahto son of Late Khetro Mohan Mahto
7. Raj Kumar Mahto son of Late Khetro Mohan Mahto
all residents of village Jintu Tola, Purana Powadiri, P.O. Reladih, P.S.
Sonahatu, District Ranchi
8. Taru Bala daughter of Late Khetro Mohan Mahto and wife of Biseshwar
Mahto of village Kudadih, P.O. Danadih, P.S. Sonahatu, District Ranchi
9. Sabya Devi daughter of Late Khetro Mohan Mahto of village and P.O.
Sataki, P.S. Angara, District Ranchi
10. Yogeshwar Mahto son of Late Sam Ray Mahto
11. Maheswar Mahto son of Late Sam Ray Mahto
12. Dhaneshwar Mahto son of Late Sam Ray Mahto
13. Sheo Charan Mahto son of late Sam Ray Mahto
all residents of village Powadiri, P.O. Reladih, P.S. Sonahatu, District
Ranchi.
14.Sari Bala, daughter of Late Samray Mahto and wife of Bhavtaran
Mahto of village Paramdih, P.O. Buradih, P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi.
15. Naresh Mahto son of Late Labodhan Mahto
16. Bhuneshwar Mahto son of Late Labodhan Mahto
both residents of village Jintu, Tola Purana Powadiri, P.O. Reladih, P.S.
Sonahatu, District Ranchi
17. Manjura Devi daughter of Late Labodhan Mahto and wife of Sristidhar
Mahto, resident of village Tilmi Sereng, P.O. Bansia, P.S. Silli, District
Ranchi.
18. Manda Devi daughter of Late Labodhan Mahto and wife of Sri Kunj
Lal Mahto, resident of village Madandih, P.O. Jamudag, P.S. Sonahatu,
District Ranchi.
19. Shanti Devi daughter of Late Labodhan Mahto, resident of village
Jareya, P.O. and P.S. Sonahatu, District Ranchi
1
( 2026:JHHC:10612 )
20. Pushpa Devi daughter of Late Ghasi Ram Mahto and wife of Kanhai
Mahto, resident of village Lupung, P.O. Gondlipokhar, P.S. Angara, District
Ranchi.
21. Bindo Devi daughter of Late Khetro Mohan Mahto, resident of village
Sataki, P.O. and P.S. Angara, District Ranchi .............Appellants
Versus
1. Rajkishore Mahto son of Late Mohan Mahito, resident of Village
Daruwara, P.O. and P.S. Tamar, District Ranchi Mohan Mahto son of
Late Dhani Ram Mahto
2. Sumitra Devi wife of Sri Ganesh Mahto and daughter of Late Mohan
Mahto, resident of village Bhakuadih, P.O. and P.S. Bundu, District
Ranchi.
3. Usha Devi wife of Sri Premnath Mahto and daughter of Late Mohan
Mahto, resident of village Pedadih, P.O. and P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi.
4. Rambha Devi wife of Sri Bharat Mahto and daughter prod of Late
Mohan Mahto, resident of Pedadih, P.O. and P.S Bundu, District Ranchi.
5. Yagya Bala Devi wife of Late Trilok Mahto
6. Nagendra Mahto son of late Trilok Mahto
7. Tarani Mahto son of Late Trilok Mahto, all resident of village Daruara,
P.O. Baredih, P.S. Tamar, District Ranchi.
8. Shanti Bala daughter of Trilok Mahto, resident of village Danadih, P.O.
Danadih, P.O. and P.S. Sonahatu, District Ranchi.
9. Basanti Bala daughter of Trilok Mahto, resident of Pirand village
Turkibera, P.S. Sonahatu, District Ranchi.
10. Bharti Bala daughter of Trilok Mahto and wife of Sripati Mahto of
village Heth Buradih, P.O. Buradih, P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi.
11. Shasti Bala Devi, daughter of Trilok Mahto of village Rahe Nawagaon
Barai Kocha, P.O. and P.S Sonahatu, District Ranchi.
12. Nuni Bala daughter of Late Dhani Ram and wife of Duti Krishna
Mahto of village Ulilohar, P.O. Ulilohar, P.S. Tamar, District Ranchi.
13. Smt. Bari Mahtoain wife of Bishwanath Mahto, resident of village
Jintu, Tola Punardag, P.O. and P.S Sonahatu, District Ranchi
14. Mohan Mahto son of Late Niranjan Mahto, resident of village
Powadiri, P.O. Reladih, P.S. Sonahatu, District Ranchi.
15 Sarla wife of Ghasi Mahto, resident of village Poard Datamda, P.O. and
P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi.
16. Lalo wife of Ghanshyam Mahto, resident of village Edalhatu, P.O. and
P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi ................ Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate
( 2026:JHHC:10612 )
For the Resp. Nos.:- 1, 2, 3, 4, 12 and 13:- Mr. H.K. Mahato, Advocate
Mrs. Ahalya Mahato, Advocate
Ms. Jyotsna Mahato, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos. 5 to 11:- Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Malviya, Advocate
For Resp. Nos. 14, 15 and 16:- Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Advocate
Mrs. Nanda Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondents :
17/Dated: 15/04/2026
Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants
and Mr. H.K. Mahato, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 12 and
13, Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 to 11 and Mr.
Anil Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 14, 15 and 16.
2. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
decree dated 17.05.2012 (decree signed on 01.06.2012) passed by learned
District Judge XII, Ranchi dismissing the Title Appeal No. 140 of 2007 and
confirming the final decree dated 02.08.2007 (decree signed on 08.08.2007)
passed by the Munsif, Khunti in Partition Suit No. 109 of 1979.
3. The plaintiffs/respondents instituted Title Suit no. 109/79 against
the defendants for cancellation of sale deed dated 23.3.1979 executed by
plaintiffs in favour of the defendants with respect to the land described in
schedule A to the plaint and for partition of half share of the land described in
Schedule- B of the plaint and for passing a preliminary decree accordingly and
after appointing a survey knowing Pleader Commissioner separate takhta with
respect to their half share be prepared and the decree be made final. The said
suit was contested by the defendants/ appellants. Defendant No. 3, Lil Mohan
Mahto supported the claim of the plaintiffs. The said suit was decreed vide
judgment and decree dated 12.2.1983 giving specific finding that while allotting
separate takhta by the Pleader Commissioner maximum convenience of both
the parties shall be taken into consideration.
4. Aggrieved with the said judgment and decree the some of the
defendants preferred First Appeal no. 54 of 1983 before the Hon'ble High Court
( 2026:JHHC:10612 )
of Patna in its Ranchi Bench. The said appeal was dismissed on 20.5.1997.
Thereafter L.P.A. no. 302 of 1997 was filed before the High Court which was
dismissed vide judgment and order dated 17.7.2002.
5. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants submits
that the plaintiffs filed a petition on 23.1.2003 in the above suit for
appointment of a Pleader Commissioner and a Pleader Commissioner was
appointed for carving out separate takhta with respect to half share of the
plaintiffs over the suit land. He also submits that in the preliminary decree
there was clear direction that in partitioning of land the Pleader Commissioner
shall take into consideration the maximum convenience of both the parties
concerned. The Pleader Commissioner submitted his report dated 10.4.2005 in
the court on 15.4.2005 which was in absence of the defendants/appellants
which was accepted by order dated 29.6.2007 and accordingly final decree
was prepared on 2.8.2007.
6. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants further
submits that the report of the pleader commissioner was accepted without
hearing the appellants herein and in that view of the matter that law point for
admitting the present second appeal. He also submits that correct valuation
has not been assessed by the pleader commissioner that is also law point for
admitting the present second appeal. On these grounds, he submits that this
second appeal may kindly be admitted.
7. Admittedly, Title Suit no. 109/79 was decreed by judgment and
decree dated 12.2.1983. The Title Appeal No. 140 of 2007 prerferred by the
appellants/defendants has been dismissed by judgment and decree dated
17.05.2012 (decree signed on 01.06.2012) by learned District Judge XII, Ranchi
The First Appeal No. 54 of 1983(a) preferred by the defendants/appellant has
been dismissed on 20.05.1997 and thereafter L.P.A. no. 302 of 1997 was filed
which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 17.7.2002.
( 2026:JHHC:10612 )
8. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The Partition Suit No.
109/79 was brought by the plaintiffs/respondents for a preliminary decree of
partition regarding half share of the plaintiffs in the suit property as detailed in
the schedule of the plaint and also for cancellation of sale deed dated
23.03.1979 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant in respect of
half share of the land as detailed in the Schedule A of the plaint. The learned
court has ordered that the suit be decreed on contest with costs and the sale
deed in question declared void and was cancelled. The decree for partition of
half sharer of the plaintiffs was also passed and accordingly direction was
issued to prepare a preliminary decree the plaintiff was directed to take step
to get pleader commissioner appointed to carve out the share and pursuant to
that pleader commissioner was appointed and share has been divided.
9. The point was argument before the learned First Appellate Court by
the appellants herein with regard to the appointment of pleader commissioner
and not providing the notice and the said ground has been argued before this
Court also.
10. From the judgment of the First Appellate Court, it transpires that
the learned court has found from the report of the Advocate's Commissioner
that Advocate Commissioner sent notices to the appellants/defendants twice
for participation in the takhtabandi. So far as objection raised regarding non-
preparation of filed book and non-preparation of fixed point was concerned, the
learned first appellate court found from the report that the Advocate
Commissioner has taken into consideration the area of the plot for partition and
for preparation of which a filed book or fixed point was at all not necessary. So
far as valuation of property is concerned, the learned first appellate court has
found that Advocate Commissioner's report specifically pointed out that the
Advocate Commissioner fixed values of the and as per their quality and
separate values has been given to separate qualities of the land and it has been
( 2026:JHHC:10612 )
stated that as the other lands are concerned with the said land it will be of the
same value. The learned first appellate court has also found that the point has
been raised by the appellants regarding exclusive possession of the land by the
defendants/appellants, however, from the petition of the appellants the learned
first appellate court has found that no specific details regarding possession of
the land has been given and the matter was never raised by the
appellants/defendants at any stage of the case and not even before the first
appellate court
11. The learned first appellate court has also found that the appellants
failed to state at any stage of the case that a common tank used by both of the
parties has been given separately to the plaintiff even at this stage and the
details of the land where taken is situated has not been given. Furthermore,
the argument was also advanced by the appellants before the learned first
appellate court that judgment was passed against the dead person and the
learned first appellate court found that the legal representatives of Shanti Devi
has already been substituted and in view of that the said submission of the
appellants was not correct before the learned first appellate court. The error
occurred with regard to plot number has also been rectified by the learned trial
court which has been further noted by the learned first appellate court and
thereafter the title appeal has been dismissed affirming the judgment of
learned trial court.
12. It also transpires from the judgment of the learned first appellate
court that the appellants herein were provided several opportunities to make
any objection. However, no objection to preparation of final decree and
allotment of takhta was made by the appellants herein
13. The partition suit is of the year, 1979 and at the time of passing of
the judgment of the learned first appellate court a time of 33 years have
already passed. Meaning thereby that now 46 years have already elapsed and
( 2026:JHHC:10612 )
both the sides have been given equal share. This is partition suit only and
decree has already executed and in that view of the matter also there is no
substantial question of law involved in the present second appeal. There is no
perversity in the judgements of both the learned courts. The points argued
herein for admitted the second appeal has been rightly dealt with by the
learned courts. No substantial question of law is involved in this second
appeal and sitting under section 100 of the C.P.C., the High Court is not
required to admit this second appeal in absence of any substantial question of
law and accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed. Pending, I.A., if any,
stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dt. 15.04.2026
Satyarthi/A.F.R
