Bhola Mahto And Others vs Most. Dhuma Devi And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 433 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Bhola Mahto And Others vs Most. Dhuma Devi And Others on 27 January, 2026

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             S.A. No. 187 of 2008

     Bhola Mahto and others                       ...     ...     Appellants
                                        Versus
     Most. Dhuma Devi and others                  ...     ...    Respondents
                         ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellants : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. M.K. Layak, Senior Advocate : Ms. Manjushri Patra, Advocate : Mrs. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Amicus

---

th 23/27 January 2026

1. The learned counsel for the appellants has read the findings of the learned trial's court, wherein the learned trial court has recorded a specific finding that there was previous partition and the property in Khata no. 57 was the exclusive property of Radha Mahto.

2. The learned counsel submits that considering the nature of substantial question of law, the case is related only with Khata no. 57, which was sold by the daughters of Radha Mahto, namely, Bauni Devi and Bilaso Devi.

3. The learned counsel submits that prior to 1956, the daughter had no right to property at all and for that purpose, he has placed the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3541 wherein the substantial question of law which fell for consideration was whether a daughter could acquire any right, either limited or absolute, by inheritance prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the property of her deceased father, who died prior to 1956, leaving behind him in addition to such daughter, his widow as well? The learned counsel has also placed the facts of the aforesaid case from paragraph 2 which reveal that the property involved in the hand of deceased father was a co-parcenary property.

4. The arguments have remained inconclusive.

5. Post this case for further argument tomorrow i.e. on 28 th January 2026 at 10:30 A.M. as the first case.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul/-