Dismissed

Hiramani Devi And Anr. v. Kariyar Alias Karjil Maraiya

Jharkhand HC13 Nov 2019SA/397/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a second appeal challenging the vacation of a title suit regarding an adoption deed. The court held there was no substantial question of law and refused to examine witnesses again, upholding the concurrent findings of lower courts that the adoption was valid and heirs had failed to prove the deceased was alive in 1985.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree of courts below affirmed.

Hiramani Devi And Anr. Vs Kariyar Alias Karjil… — Succession and Inheritance | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

S. A. No. 397 of 2016

¶4

Hiramani Devi, D/o Late Mahalal Maraiya, W/o Sanatan Maraiya, R/o Village-Bargachha Hariyari, PO & PS Poraiyahat, District Godda

¶5

Karmi @ Rukmini Devi, W/o Bihari Maraiya, R/o Village-Sarkanda, PO & PS Godda(T), District Godda

¶6

… … Plaintiffs - Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Kariyar @ Karogil Maraiya, S/o Toyo Maraiya, R/o Village-Bhilai, PO & PS Meharma, District Godda, present residing at VillageBargachhiya Harihari, PS Poraiyahat, District Godda

¶9

… … Defendant - Respondent

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶12

¶13

For the Appellants : Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Advocate

¶14

¶15

Order No. 12 : Dated 13^th November, 2019

¶16

Heard Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, learned counsel for the

¶17

appellants.

¶18

Present Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2016 and 25.6.2016 respectively passed by learned District Judge-IV, Godda in Title Appeal No. 01 of 2012, whereby the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2011 and 10.01.2012 respectively passed by learned Sub Judge-I, Godda in Title Suit No. 76 of 2003 has been affirmed.

¶19

The plaintiffs-appellants’ case, as transpires from the judgment of the trial court as well as the appellate court, is that Ramlal Maraiya died in the year 1985 leaving behind Hiramani Devi (plaintiff no.1) Bhatiji and Karmi Devi (plaintiff no.2) Bhagni as his heirs as well as the heirs of the entire lands of Jamabandi No. 68 of Mouza Bargachha Hariyari. Further case of the plaintiffs-appellants is that defendant no. 1-Mossamat Sukurmani Devi (since deceased), mother of defendant no.2-Karigar Maraiya used to visit the house of Ramlal Maraiya being distant relative and was leading the role of concubine, as Ramlal Maraiya was widower having no children and Sukurmani was

¶20

¶21

also widowed. Ramlal Maraiya kept defendants in his house during his lifetime. After the death of Ramlal Maraiya, the plaintiffs-appellants performed his funeral and Shradh Karm and inherited his property. The plaintiffs-appellants allowed the defendants to live in the house of Ramlal Maraiya and they both continued to live in the house of Ramlal Maraiya and used to look after the cultivation work on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants. Further case of the plaintiffs-appellants is that on 10.08.2003, when the plaintiffs-appellants went to cultivate themselves, defendant-Karigar Maraiya declared that he is the adopted son of Ramlal Maraiya by a registered deed made in the year 1991 and that he will not allow the plaintiffs-appellants to cultivate the lands of Ramlal Maraiya. Then the plaintiffs-appellants searched out the registered adoption deed and for the first time came to know in the year 2003 about the illegal act of the defendants.

¶22

It is further pleaded by the plaintiffs-appellants that they through their husbands tried to get the copy of the adoption deed and having obtained it, came to know about the alleged adoption deed, said to be executed by Ramlal Maraiya on 18.09.1991, stating therein that Ramlal Maraiya had adopted Karigar Maraiya on 27.10.1988 and got the same registered on 18.09.1991. According to the plaintiffsappellants, when Ramlal Maraiya died in the year 1985, how he can execute registered deed of adoption in the year 1991 and hence the adoption Deed No. 1474 dated 18.09.1991 is forged, fabricated and false. According to the plaintiffs-appellants, neither in the year 1991 nor in the year 1988, any religious ceremony was performed by Ramlal Maraiya as he was dead person on that day. Therefore, alleged adoption Deed No. 1474 dated 18.09.1991 is fit to be declared illegal, forged, fabricated and void. The plaintiffs-appellants have pleaded that the cause of action for the suit was arisen on 18.09.1991, the date on which the aforesaid forged deed of adoption was executed by some fictitious person in the name of Ramlal Maraiya and on 27.10.1988, on

¶23

¶24

which date it has been alleged that Ramlal Maraiya performed religious ceremony for the adoption of defendant no. 2 and also on 10.08.2003 when the plaintiffs-appellants went to cultivate the land for themselves and defendant-Karigar Maraiya declared that he is the adopted son of Ramlal Maraiya. On the basis of the above pleadings and the facts, the plaintiffs-appellants prayed that adoption Deed No. 1474 dated 18.09.1991 be declared to be illegal, forged and fabricated and the same was registered by some fictitious person and not by Ramlal Maraiya as he was died in the year 1985 and that Karigar Maraiya is not the adopted son of Ramlal Maraiya. His further prayer was to declare that no religious ceremony was performed in their house at Bargachhiya Harihari, P.S. Poraiyahat and hence the same may be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants.

¶25

The defendants on being summoned appeared and recorded their presence. The defendants have contested the suit by filing written statements. The defendants took ground that the suit is not maintainable, being barred by law of limitation, waiver, estoppels, acquiescence and res-judicata and the same is also bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of the parties. They made out a case that Ramlal Maraiya died in the year 1992 leaving behind defendant no. 2-Karigar @ Kargil Maraiya being his adopted son and not issueless. Defendant no. 2 being adopted son of Ramlal Maraiya has inherited the half land of Jamabandi No. 68 of Mouza Bargachha Hariyari being descendant of the recorded tenant Budhu Maraiya. Defendants further denied that Karigar Maraiya and Mossamat Sukurmani used to visit the house of Ramlal Maraiya and Sukurmani was leading a role of concubine of Ramlal Maraiya and that Ramlal Maraiya had kept her son with an intention that after his death defendants will perform funeral and Shradh Karm of Ramlal Maraiya and shall inherit his property. They denied further that plaintiffs-appellants have allowed the defendants to live in the house of Ramlal Maraiya and Karigar Maraiya for cultivation

¶26

¶27

work of Ramlal Maraiya on their behalf. According to defendant no. 1- Mossamat Sukurmani, she is the daughter of recorded tenant Gujara Maraiya and as such she is cousin (chacheri sister) of Ramlal Maraiya. Ramlal Maraiya had no issue and thus he took Karigar @ Kargil Maraiya in adoption with consent of his cousin-Mossamat Sukurmani. In the year 1988, in presence of the villagers and Babu Lal Hansda, the Mukhiya of village-Bargachha Hariyari, by performing all rituals and rites of adoption including giving and taking ceremony, Ramlal Maraiya has adopted Karigar Maraiya as his son. On the same day, a paper was prepared containing signatures of Mukhiya and several villagers and since then Karigar @ Kargil Maraiya lived with Ramlal Maraiya as his adopted son and later on in the year 1991, a deed of adoption vide Deed No. 1474 dated 18.09.1991 was registered disclosing therein adoption of Karigar @ Kargil Maraiya on 27.10.1988. Ramlal Maraiya was cultivating his share being partitioned amicably from Mahalal Maraiya and after his death, in the year 1992, defendant-Karigar @ Kargil Maraiya remained continuously in physical possession over the said land which was inherited by him in the capacity of adopted son. Defendant no. 2 performed funeral ceremony as well as Shradh ceremony of Ramlal Maraiya which is evident from the photographs given by Karigar @ Kargil Maraiya. In the year 1993, defendant no. 2 applied for mutation of his name for lands of Jamabandi No. 68 of Mouza Bargachha Hariyari in the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Godda vide Mutation Case No. 168 of 1992-93 and the learned court being satisfied with the report of Circle Officer, Poraiyahat and having no objections of 16 Anna raiyat, mutated the name of Karigar @ Kargil Maraiya for lands of 11 bigha, 13 kattha and 1 dhur by making new holding vide order dated 25.11.1993. Defendant no. 2 is the voter of the village containing his name in the voter list and his identity card was issued by the office of the Election Commission of India and Rashan Card was issued from the office of the Sub Divisional Officer, Godda. In

¶28

¶29

the survey operation, the land, which is in possession of defendant no. 2, has also been entered in his name in Tasdik and Parcha was issued in his name.

¶30

The defendants denied the possession of the plaintiffs-appellants and stated that the recorded tenant Budhu Maraiya died in the year 1956 having a son Ramlal Maraiya and a daughter Kulowati and as Kulowati herself had failed to inherit the property and hence, inheritance of plaintiff no. 2 in the suit property does not arise. Karmi Devi-plaintiff no. 2 is living in her Sasural and she and her husband had no interest in the suit property. The defendants further made out a case in the court below that the plaintiffs-appellants knowingly concealed the name of Sukurmani in the genealogy table shown in the plaint whereas Sukurmani is the own sister of Mahalal and is the daughter of recorded tenant Gujara Maraiya. Likewise the plaintiffsappellants have left the name of Kaushalya Devi in the genealogy table, who is the sister of Hiramani (plaintiff no. 1). Defendants have denied the claim of the plaintiffs-appellants and further denied that Ramlal Maraiya died in the year 1988 and according to them, Ramlal Maraiya died in the year 1992. Defendants have claimed valid adoption by Ramlal Maraiya and stated that adoption deed is legal, genuine and binding documents.

¶31

On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the trial court formulated six issues to decide the suit. Issue No. 4 is with regard to alleged deed of adoption no. 1474 dated 18.09.1991. The defendants examined nine witnesses and the plaintiffs-appellants have produced three witnesses. The plaintiffs-appellants have filed the family ration card of defendant no. 2, marked as Exhibit-1, whereas the defendants filed documents, marked as Exhibits-A to F/4. After considering the evidences of the Plaintiff’s witnesses and the Defendants’ witnesses, including the documents so exhibited, learned trial court came to the finding that the plaintiffs-appellants are not entitled to have any relief

¶32

¶33

and, accordingly, the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.12.2011.

¶34

Aggrieved with the said judgment, the plaintiffs filed appeal being Title Appeal No. 01 of 2012 before the District Judge-IV, Godda.

¶35

The appellate court also formulated the issues to decide the appeal and after discussing the evidences of the witnesses and the documents at threadbare, also came to the conclusion that there is no merit in the appeal and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 10.6.2016.

¶36

Aggrieved with that, the appellants have filed this Second Appeal.

¶37

Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the trial court as well as the appellate court have not considered this aspect of the matter that Ramlal Maraiya died before execution of the adoption deed. He further submits that that the trial court as well as the appellate court have not considered the documents on records in right perspective. On this ground, he submits that the substantial questions of law is involved in this Second Appeal and this Second Appeal is fit to be admitted.

¶38

Having heard the submissions of Mr. Roy, this Court finds that the trial court as well as the appellate court have entered into detailed discussions and the evidences adduced by the parties. The appellate court below further framed issues for determination of the appeal and as such, it transpires that there is substantial compliance of Order XLI Rule 31 C.P.C. The trial court framed following points for determination of appeal which read as under:

¶39

Whether Karigar Maraiya is adopted son of late Ram Lal Maraiya and Adoption Deed No. 1474 dated 18.09.1991 coupled with Sada deed document dated 27.10.1988 is a legal and valid document?

¶40

Whether Ram Lal Maraiya died in the year 1985?

¶41

¶42

Whether the impugned judgment and decree is legal, valid and based on correct appreciation of facts and law or it requires interference by this court or is liable to be set aside?

¶43

Whether the suit of plaintiffs is fit to be decreed?

¶44

While deciding Issue Nos. 1 and 2 with regard to Adoption Deed No. 1474 dated 18.09.1991, the appellate court considered the exhibits and the oral testimonies of both the parties and came to the finding that from the deposition of defendants’ witnesses the defendants have proved that adoption of defendant no. 2 Karigar Maraiya was made in the year 1988. The plaintiffs-appellants’ witnesses were not the competent persons to prove the factum of adoption having no sufficient knowledge regarding the business of the family of Ram Lal Maraiya. They have made contradictory statements on the point of death of Ram Lal Maraiya and thus, the plaintiffs-appellants have failed to prove that Ram Lal Maraiya died in the year 1985.

¶45

After discussing further evidences of the witnesses and the documents exhibited by the parties and after discussing each and every aspect of the matter, both the courts below have come to a concurrent finding that the appellants are not entitled for any relief.

¶46

This Court sitting in Second Appeal is not inclined to further examine the witnesses who had deposed in the court below and whose evidences were considered by the trial court as well as the appellate court in right perspective. This Court is thus, not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the courts below. This Court further finds that there is no substantial questions of law involved in this Second Appeal.

¶47

Accordingly, the Second Appeal stands dismissed.

¶48

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶49

AKT

Hiramani Devi And Anr. v. Kariyar Alias Karjil Maraiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiramani Devi And Anr. v. Kariyar Alias Karjil Maraiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Moses Kumkal And Ors. Vs Home Department

Dikesh Kumar And Ors. Vs Home Department

Keshab Kumar Das And Ors. Vs Home Department

Mostt.Dhaneshwari Devi And Ors. Vs Most.Chinta Rani Singh And Ors.

Most. Khaderan Devi Sahadar and Ors. Vs Jai Prakash Gupta And Ors.

Teju Singh And Ors. Vs Bodhen Singh And Ors.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Rohit Moses Kumkal And Ors. Vs Home Department

Dikesh Kumar And Ors. Vs Home Department

Keshab Kumar Das And Ors. Vs Home Department

Mostt.Dhaneshwari Devi And Ors. Vs Most.Chinta Rani Singh And Ors.

Most. Khaderan Devi  Sahadar and Ors. Vs Jai Prakash Gupta And Ors.

Teju Singh And Ors. Vs Bodhen Singh And Ors.

Most. Khaderan Devi Sahadar and Ors. Vs Jai Prakash Gupta And Ors.