Dismissed

Rakhal Mahato v. Kisto Mahato and Ors.

Jharkhand HC2 Nov 2022SA/476/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a second appeal against a decree upholding the dismissal of a title suit. The court held that concurrent findings by lower courts indicated the property was already partitioned, negating the claim for joint property declaration.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed at admission stage finding no substantial question of law as concurrent findings proved partition.

Rakhal Mahato Vs Kisto Mahato and Ors. — Partition | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

S.A. No. 476 of 2015

¶4

Rakhal Mahato … … Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. Kisto Mahato 2. Padu Mahato

¶7

Khetra Nath Mahato

¶8

Bindheswar Mahato

¶9

Sitaram Mahato

¶10

Thakur Mahato

¶11

Mukhteswar Mahato

¶12

M/s Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd., Dhanbad.

¶13

Jogiram Mahato

¶14

6/ 02.11.2022 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

¶15

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 2.7.2015 and decree signed on 14.7.2015, passed by learned District Judge-IV, Dhanbad, dismissing the Title Appeal No. 54/2010 and upholding and affirming the judgment dated 18.12.2009 and decree signed on 22.12.2009, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-V, Dhanbad, in Title Suit No. 117 of 1992, whereby suit of plaintiff has been dismissed on contest.

¶16

The plaintiff-appellant has preferred this Second Appeal challenging the orders passed by the learned Courts below.

¶17

The suit was preferred by the plaintiff-appellant for declaration that the suit property is a joint property and to prohibit the defendant nos. 1, 3 and 5 from selling the land in favour of defendant no. 9 on the basis of Panchnama dated 14.4.1991 (Ext.-A). After examining the evidence both documentary and oral, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit, which was also affirmed by the learned Appellate Court.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that both the Courts below misconstrued Ext-A and B by shifting onus on the plaintiff against the presumption of jointness governed by Hindu law. Learned counsel submits that Ext-A (Panchanama) was prepared only for the purpose of securing employment and not for partition. Learned counsel further submits that the suit property was never partitioned

¶19

¶20

between the parties by metes and bounds. Therefore, the findings arrived at by both the Courts below are bad in law and fit to be set aside.

¶21

Be that as it may, having heard the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the judgements passed by the Courts below, this Court finds that both the Courts below have come to the finding that though the plaintiff has brought this suit for declaration of schedule property as joint property, but in paragraph62, he has categorically stated that all the co-sharers had cultivated the land separately as per their convenience. The appellant further stated that he has not brought the suit in respect of all the lands, rather, he brought the suit only for disputed land. The plaintiff-appellant further stated that lands of the parties had already been partitioned. Therefore, the suit preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed, which was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court below.

¶22

In view of the findings recorded by both the Courts below, it can comfortably be inferred that the suit land was already partitioned as per Ext-A, the Panchnama, which speaks that co-sharers had cultivated their lands separately as per their share and demarcated by ridge. The plaintiff-appellant has also not brought on record to the suit the entire land, rather, the disputed land has been brought on record as per choice of the plaintiff. Hence, there is no illegality or any infirmity in the orders / judgments passed by the learned Courts below.

¶23

Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself, as it is a case of concurrent finding and no substantial questions of law is involved.

¶24

(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)

¶25

R.Kr.

Rakhal Mahato v. Kisto Mahato and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakhal Mahato v. Kisto Mahato and Ors.

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

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Dipankar Roy Manager Legal Vs Amrit Jain And Ors.

New India Assurance Company Limited Represented Through Its Divisional Office No 1 Vs Roshni Mahakud And Ors.

Kauleshwar Dangi Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Arbind Mandal Vs Satish Mandal and Ors.

Shri Nimai Ruj And Ors. Vs Union Of India Through General Manager Eastern Railway

Pankaj Kumar Vs Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Through Its Secretary And Anr.