Rokan Oraon vs Jagna Oraon on 2 February, 2026

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                                                            2026:JHHC:2654


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                        S.A. No. 630 of 2015

   1. Rokan Oraon
   2. Puran Oraon
      Both sons of Sudhwa Oraon
   3. Jairam Oraon
   4. Jhagu Oraon
      Appellant nos. 3 & 4 sons of Manga Oraon.
      All resident of village Okba, P.O. & P.S. Basia, District Gumla
      ...       ...     Defendant nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5/Respondents/Appellants
                                 Versus
   1. Jagna Oraon
   2. Etwa Oraon
   3. Banu Oraon
   4. Budhwa Oraon
      Respondent nos. 1 to 4 sons of Late Jatoo Oraon
   5. Madho Oraon
   6. Ranthu Oraon
   7. Lohra Oraon
      Respondent nos. 5 to 7 sons of Late Mangroo Oraon
   8. Chamru Oraon, son of Charo Oraon
   9. Biguwa Oraon
   10.Marwari Oraon
      Respondent nos. 9 and 10 sons of Dhunjuwa Oraon
   11.Jatru Oraon
   12.Gandur Oraon
      Respondent nos. 11 to 12 sons of Murla Oraon
   13.Etwa Oraon
   14.Laduwa Oraon
      Respondent nos. 13 to 14 sons of Sukhia Oraon
   15.Bhiku Oraon, son of Late Patras Oraon
   16.Mangu Oraon, son of Late Maghi Oraon
      All resident of village Okba, P.O. & P.S. Basia, District Gumla
                           ...     ...     Plaintiffs/Appellants/Respondents
   17.Sukra Oraon, son of Sudhwa Oraon, resident of village Okba, P.O. &
      P.S. Basia, District Gumla
      ...       ... Defendant no. 3/Respondent/Proforma Respondent
                                 ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

2026:JHHC:2654

---

    For the Appellant                        : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
    For the Respondents                      :
                                   ---
   nd
05/2 February 2026

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf the appellants.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 04.09.2015 (decree sealed and signed on 18.09.2015) passed by the learned District Judge-III, Gumla in Title Appeal No. 05 of 2014, whereby the appeal has been allowed and the judgment dated 18.12.2013 (decree sealed and signed on 23.12.2013) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division-II, Gumla in Partition Suit No. 44 of 2005 has been reversed.

3. The suit was dismissed and the appeal was allowed and consequently, the defendant nos. 1, 2 4, and 5 are the appellants before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the parties were separate in mess and cultivation and there was a partition prior to revisional survey in the year 1932 and since they were separate in mess and cultivation, therefore the learned trial court rightly recorded that there was previous partition, but the learned 1st appellate court has wrongly interfered with the judgment passed by the learned trial court and reversed the finding and decreed the suit.

5. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in S.A. No. 39/1995 (R) and also the judgment reported in [2005 (1) JCR 12 (Jhr.)] (Hadi Ram Puran & Others vs. Haremohan Puran & Others).

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and considering the sole argument, which has been advanced with regard to previous partition which was issue no. 3 before the learned trial court, this Court finds that the issue no. 3 was decided vide paragraph 15 of the trial court's judgment and the learned trial court recorded that no documentary evidence in connection with previous partition was placed on record, but

2026:JHHC:2654

on the basis of oral evidences was of the view that when both the parties were separate in mess and cultivation since prior to 1964, it will be assumed that there was previous partition between the parties. The learned trial court also referred to Exhibit-1, 1/a, 2 and 2/a and observed that the same do not prove that there was no previous partition between the parties. However, contents of these exhibits have not been discussed while giving the finding on issue no. 3.

7. The learned 1st appellate court has discussed the documentary evidences and observed that there were several recorded tenants with respect to khata no. 44 and 90 and the plaintiffs and defendants are the descendants of those recorded tenants. The plaintiffs claimed that there was no previous partition and the defendants claimed that there was previous partition and that the witnesses of the plaintiffs stated that the plaintiffs and defendants were cultivating the land in accordance with their convenience. Even the evidence of the defendants and produced the revenue receipts showed that the rent was being jointly deposited by the parties. The court , interalia, recorded that from perusal of the Ext. 2 , certified copy of Khata No. 44 it transpired that Plot no. 157, 158,159, 160, 161 has been mentioned in remark column no. 17 as a joint family property and from perusal of column No.2, where the name of the recorded tenant are mentioned, endorsement has been made as Bahisse Barabar, which clarifies that there has been no partition in between the parties since before Revisional Survey operation held in the year 1932 as claimed by the defendant. The court recorded a finding that it was quite clear that the defendant was not able to establish that there was previous partition in between parties rather the plaintiff has been able to establish that there was no partition among the recorded tenant or their descendants. The finding of the learned 1st appellate court in paragraph 13 is quoted as under: -

"13. Findings of this court Having gone through the above discussion oral and documentary evidence it is clear that there were several recorded tenant in the record of rights whose names have been

2026:JHHC:2654

recorded in the record of right mentioning Khata No. 44 and 90. Plaintiff and defendants are descendants of those recorded tenant. Plaintiff claims that there was no partition whereas defendant claims that there was partition. Witnesses of the plaintiff say that plaintiffs and defendants are cultivating the land according to convenience. D.W.2 in Para 7 has also stated that revenue rent receipt is being deposited jointly by the parties. D.W.3 has stated that 9 acre land was allotted to each co-sharer. This witness has also stated that Banda Parcha has been prepared jointly. From perusal of the case record it transpires that plaintiff side has not been able to file Banda Parcha/Kachcha Parcha in support of the fact that it was prepared jointly. However, from the perusal of revenue rent receipt the Ext.1 to 1/a it is quite clear that it has been issued in the name of Jagna Oraon with respect to land of Khata No.44 and 90 after filing of the suit issued in the year 2007 whereas suit has been filed in the year 2005. The plaintiff has also filed Ext.2 and 2/a showing land in the name of ancestor of plaintiff and defendant prepared in the year 1932 when Revisional Survey operation was going on. This case has been filed in the year 2005 bearing Title Partition Suit No. 44/ 05 but neither of the parties have been able to file any rent receipt obtained from 1932 till 2005. From perusal of the khatian it transpires that nothing has been mentioned with respect to joint land in the remark column of C.C. of Khata No. 90 Vide Ext.2/a to the contrary Kabazbari has been entered showing different measurement of the land in remark column . From perusal of the Ext. 2 C.C. of Khata No. 44 it transpires that Plot no. 157, 158,159, 160, 161 has been mentioned in remark column no. 17 as a joint family property and from perusal of column No.2 where the name of the recorded tenant are mentioned endorsement has been made as Bahisse Barabar which clarifies that there has been no partition in between the parties since before Revisional Survey operation held in the year 1932 as claimed by the defendant. Thus it is quite clear that the defendant has not been able to establish that there was previous partition in between parties rather the plaintiff has been able to establish that there was no partition among the recorded tenant or their descendants. There has been unity of title and unity of possession over the suit land. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the court below is set aside and 1/5th share is allotted for the each parties in the suit land. Thus both issues are decided in favour of

2026:JHHC:2654

the plaintiff/appellant. From the discussions and reasons mentioned above the appeal is allowed on contest without cost."

8. This Court finds that the learned 1st appellate court has duly discussed the documentary and oral evidences to come to a finding that there has been no partition between the parties by metes and bounds and there was unity of title and unity of possession with respect to the suit property.

9. So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants passed by this Court in S.A. No. 39/1995 (R) is concerned, on the face of the judgement it clearly distinguishable. In the said case, the parties were not only separate in mess and cultivation, but there was dealings of the property amongst the plaintiffs inter-se which was a strong reason to hold that there was previous partition. No such fact has been pleaded and no such evidence has come up, so far as the present case is concerned. The law is well settled that mere separation in mess and cultivation does not amount to a proof of previous partition, that too partition by metes and bound.

10. So far as the judgment passed by this Court in [2005 (1) JCR 12 (Jhr.] (supra) is concerned, the same was passed in the 1st appellate jurisdiction and in the said case in the cadastral survey operation, separate possession of respective descendants was also recorded apart from being parties separate in mess and property. This judgment also does not help the appellants in any manner in view of the findings recorded by the learned 1st appellate court based on appreciation of materials based on record. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid judgments ex-facie do not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case and do not help the appellants.

11. This Court is of the view that the learned 1 st appellate court has done the needful and has rightly held that there was no previous partition between the parties by metes and bounds and there was unity of title and unity of possession. The prayer to frame substantial question of law on the

2026:JHHC:2654

point of previous partition is rejected. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants. No perversity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the learned 1st appellate court.

12. This Court finds that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.

13. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through 'e-mail/FAX'.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 02.02.2026 Mukul/-

Uploaded On:04.02.2026