This Second Appeal challenged the dismissal of a partition suit. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that lower courts' findings on custom and inheritance were not perverse and no substantial question of law arose.
Second Appeal dismissed; original judgment and decree upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 318 of 2016
All residents of Village- Cherheya, P.O. & P.S. Ghaghra, District- Gumla
-Versus-
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Appellants : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate Mr. Anish Anand, Advocate For the Respondents :
09/18.11.2019. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta assisted by Mr. Anish Anand, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 05.03.2016 and decree dated 10.03.2016 passed by the District Judge-III, Gumla in Title Appeal No. 03 of 2011 confirming the judgment dated 22.02.2011 and decree dated 04.03.2011 passed by the Munsif, Gumla in Title (Partition) Suit No. 44 of 2007.
It transpires from the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court that it was the case of the appellants/plaintiffs that Budhu Oraon had no son due to which Budhu Oraon and his wife Tijain Orain have decided to keep a Ghardamad for their daughter Rani Orain and after taking permission from village panches and relations and well-wishers kept Sohrai
-2-
Oraon in their house for 3 years as dhanger and after that married their daughter Rani Orain with Sohrai Oraon. Sohrai Oraon has been maintaining Budhu Oraon and Tijain Orain and was doing all services in cultivation and after death of Budhu Oraon and Tijain Orain performed their spiritual rites. After the death of his Sasur Budhu Oraon, Sohrai Oraon performed marriage of remaining three daughters of Budhu Oraon. Sohrai Oraon and Rani Oraon died leaving behind their two sons Bihari Oraon and Bahura Oraon. The appellants/plaintiffs are heirs of Budhu Oraon. In customary law of Oraon, Ghardamad is treated as his own son. Tijain Orain has also executed Ghardamadnama deed. It is said that Schedule-A of the suit land is joint property of appellants/plaintiffs and respondents/defendants, out of which for the sake of convenience, the appellants/plaintiffs are cultivating the suit land separately viz. plot no. 49, 124, 164 and 211 under khata no.23. The appellants/plaintiffs are still in possession over it. The disputes are being raised by the defendants on the point of payment of the rent with respect to the suit property and they are threatening the appellants/plaintiffs to oust from the suit property. Last payment of partition was made on 10.05.2007, but the respondents/defendants did not pay any attention to the request of the appellants/plaintiffs and, accordingly, the suit was instituted.
On receiving the notice, the defendants, who are heirs of Chaubey Oraon, appeared in the suit and filed their written statement stating therein that the suit is not maintainable and barred by principle of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence and also hit by the provisions of Specific Relief Act. It was also stated that Budhu Oraon and Tijain Orain never kept any Ghardamad. However, it was admitted that Budhu Oraon married Rani Orain with Sohrai Oraon. Rani Orain is living at her Sasural with her husband Sohrai Oraon and,
-3-
hence, there is no question of Ghardamad. It was also stated by the respondents/defendants that Sohrai Oraon and Rani Orain never maintained Budhu Oraon and his wife Tijain Orain and they never cultivated the land of Budhu Oraon rather the respondents/defendants and their father and Sukra Oraon and Bhatti Oraon maintained them and after death of Budhu Oraon and Tijain Orain, they performed their spiritual rites. It was also stated that Sohrai Oraon and Rani Orain were never living with Budhu Oraon. Budhu Oraon had only daughter Rani Orain. After the death of Budhu Oraon, his near agnates (heirs of Chaubey Oraon) came in possession over the suit land which was land of Budhu Oraon, therefore, there is no occasion of demanding partition and there is no cause of action for the suit.
On the basis of above pleadings, the trial court framed 6 issues, which
are quoted herein below:
The appellate court has framed 3 issues for adjudication, which are
quoted herein below:
While deciding the above issues, the appellate court considered the evidences of P.Ws. and D.Ws. and also considered the exhibits adduced on
-4-
behalf of the parties. While considering paragraph 25 of the statement of D.W.1- Fagua Oraon, the appellate court came to the conclusion that he has stated that the plaintiffs Bihari Oraon and Bahura Oraon live at the house of Budhu Oraon and so far as the claim of the appellants/plaintiffs that Budhu Oraon was Nana of Bihari Oraon is concerned, it is clear that Bihari Oraon and Bahura Oraon inherited the property of his Nana Budhu Oraon and his father Sohrai Oraon was Ghardamad of Budhu Oraon and in view of this fact, the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to have share to the extent of half share in the suit land i.e. khata no. 23 and further has been able to establish that Sohrai Oraon was Ghardamad of Budhu Oraon. While considering Ext.-A, the appellate court came to the conclusion that on title page in paragraph no.3, deed of Posputnama has been mentioned, but description of recital vide paragraph no.4 starts from the words “that since deed holder has been adopted as Ghardamad and had married her daughter with him and he has been giving his service to executant as a Posput hence deed holder would be entitled to get all property of executant after her death.” The appellate court came to the finding that this fact shows that Tijain Orain had previously adopted Sohrai Oraon as Ghardamad and has executed deed of declaration mentioning wrong word Posputnama at para 3 on the title page of deed of Ghardamad and, accordingly, recognized Ext.-A- a deed of Ghardamad executed by Tijain Orain. The appellate court decided all the issues after discussing the evidences as well as the documents exhibited in the court and thereafter the appeal, filed by the appellants, was dismissed. Aggrieved with this judgment, the appellants have filed this Second Appeal.
Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the land in question was Bhuihari land, which was the subject
-5-
matter of partition and according to the customary law the land goes to the nearest agnate/agnates, whereas, the respondents/defendants are the heirs of Sohrai Oraon (Ghardamad). He further submits that this is the substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that the arguments of Mr. Gupta cannot be accepted as this plea was not advanced before the courts below that the land in question is Bhuihari in nature. This Court further finds that the two fact-finding courts have discussed the evidences of P.Ws. and D.Ws. and the exhibits and, thereafter, came to the concurrent finding. There is no perversity in the judgment and there is no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal. Accordingly, this Second Appeal stands dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of lower courts regarding Ghardamad custom and party rights were perverse or involved the substantial question of law?
Ramjee Oraon and others
Rambriksha Oraon and others
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
