Manik Napit Vs Kailash Mahatha

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:13229 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

S. A. No. 115 of 2020

¶4

Manik Napit S/o Late Mangal Napit

¶5

Mira Devi D/o Late Mangal Napit

¶6

Panu Devi W/o Late Mangal Napit All residents of Village- Barkama, P.O. & P.S.- Chandankiyari, District-Bokaro … … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants -Versus-

¶7

Kailash Mahatha S/o Surendra Nath Mahatha

¶8

Shakti Pada Napit S/o Gangadhar Napit Both are residents of Village- Barkama, P.O. & P.S.Chandankiyari, District-Bokaro

¶9

Sriram Napit S/o Late Buka Napit, R/o Village- Kashitand, Narkara, P.O. & P.S.- Chandankiyari, District- Bokaro, at present residing at Kashipur, Narkera, P.O. & P.S.- Kashipur, District- Purulia (West Bengal)

¶10

… Defendants/Respondents/Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶13

--For the Appellants : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Advocate

¶14

¶15

10 /13.02.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶16

appellants.

¶17

2. This second appeal has been filed for setting aside the Judgment and decree dated 31.01.2020 (decree signed on 06.02.2020) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1^st , Bokaro in Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 30.11.2016 (decree signed on 14.12.2016) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bokaro in Title Suit No. 50 of 2006 has been dismissed. The appellants before this Court are the legal heirs of the original plaintiff namely, Mangal Napit who died during pendency of the suit.

¶18

3. The original plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration of his permanent raiyati right over the suit land and for declaration that the Sale Deed No.6093 dated 25.11.2003 is void, illegal and without jurisdiction and for cancellation of the same and also for recovery of the possession, if and when the plaintiff is found dispossessed. He had also sought relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents to go over or near the suit land to disturb his peaceful possession in any manner whatsoever.

¶19

1

¶20

( 2025:JHHC:13229 )

¶21

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts, still there is substantial question of law involved in this case. He submitted that the learned trial court was wrong in holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that Suda Napit died issueless. The learned counsel further submitted that the entire case revolves around the fact as to whether the recorded raiyat Suda Napit died issueless or left behind one heirdaughter namely, Nidhiya @ Lidhiya Naptain.

¶22

5. The learned counsel submitted that the plaintiffs were claiming title by virtue of Sale Deed No.8379 dated 16.10.1987 (Exhibit-1) executed by Smt. Abala Naptain who transferred the share of her father-Late Mahkum Napit and share of her uncle-Late Suda Napit by claiming that Suda Napit died 'son-less'. He further submitted that the findings recorded by the learned courts that Suda Napit died issue-less is perverse.

¶23

6. The case of the plaintiffs is that the land including the suit property was recorded in the name of Ram Napit, Shyam Napit and Chaku Napit, all sons of Gobardhan Napit in one part and Mahkum Napit and Suda Napit, sons of Magan Napit in the second part and Deena Napit son of Durga Napit and Phulia Naptain widow of Chakar Napit in third part in the last cadastral survey operation. It was their specific case that Ram Napit died issue-less, Shyam Napit died leaving behind his sons Ganesh Napit, Hublal Napit and Bishu Napit. Chaku Napit died issue-less and accordingly the share of Ram Napit and Chaku Napit devolved upon the sons of Shyam Napit.

¶24

One part	Ram Napit	Died issue-less
	Shyam Napit	Died leaving his sons Ganesh Napit,
		Hublal Napit and Bishu Napit
	Chaku Napit	Died issue-less
Second part	Mahkum Napit	Died leaving his only daughter
		Abala Naptain
	Suda Napit	Issue-less
Third part	Deena Napit	Died leaving his son Trivuwan

¶25

2

¶26

( 2025:JHHC:13229 )

¶27

	Napit
Phulia Naptain	Died issue less

¶28

7. Thus, it was the case of the plaintiffs that Mahkum Napit died leaving behind his only daughter Abala Naptain and Suda Napit died issue-less. Accordingly, the share of Suda Napit devolved to Abala Naptain. Further case of the plaintiffs was that daughter of Mahkum Napit namely, Abala Naptain sold her own share and also the share of Suda Napit (since Suda Napit died issueless) in Khata No. 295 vide registered Sale Deed No. 8379 dated 16.10.1987 to Bishu Napit, son of Late Shyam Napit, Paresh Napit, son of Late Ganesh Napit and Mangal Napit son of Late Hublal Napit and put them in possession. 8. On the other hand, it was the specific case of the defendants that the recorded raiyat Mahkum Napit died leaving behind his only daughter Abala Naptain and the recorded raiyat Suda Napit died leaving behind his only daughter and heir Lidhiya Naptain who inherited the share of Suda Napit. Lidhiya Naptain died leaving behind one son namely, Buka Napit who died leaving behind his only son namely, Ram Napit and Ram Napit ultimately inherited the share of Suda Napit. Further case of the defendants was that Ram Napit being the legal heir and successor of Suda Napit sold the suit property to Defendant No. 1 and 2 namely, Shaktipada Pramanik and Kailash Mahtha through registered Sale Deed No. 6093 dated 25.11.2003 and put them in possession. It was the case of the defendants that the Sale Deed No. 8379 dated 16.10.1987 executed by Abala Naptain daughter of Mahkum Naptain was forged and fabricated and was without having any legal right, so far as share of the recorded raiyat namely, Suda Napit is concerned and that the said deed was never acted upon. 9. The learned Trial Court framed as many as 10 issues including the issue as to whether the transfer made vide Sale Deed No.6093 dated 25.11.2003 was lawful and valid. The learned Trial Court recorded in Paragraph-17 that the very moot question involved in the suit is whether the recorded raiyat Suda Napit died issue-less or died leaving behind his only heir/daughter namely, Lidhiya Naptain and this is a question of facts.

¶29

3

¶30

( 2025:JHHC:13229 )

¶31

10. The learned Trial Court scrutinized the materials on record and recorded that as per Exhibit-1, which is the sole document on the basis of which the plaintiffs have claimed their relief, contains the fact that vendor’s uncle Suda Napit died "son-less" and nowhere it has been written in it that vendor’s uncle Suda Napit died “issue-less.” The learned Trial Court considered other materials also and came to a specific finding that Suda Napit had one daughter and he did not die issue-less and consequently, Abala Napitain could not have transferred the share of Suda Napit. The finding of the learned Trial Court is as under: -

¶32

“ Considering all the facts in its totality, the court reached on the conclusion with respect to the Moot Question that the plaintiffs have failed to discharge their ‘initial burden of prove’ that their vendor's uncle Suda Napit died issue-less. And once it is not proved that the Said Suda Napit had died issue-less, It creates reasonable doubt about the entitlement of the remote heir like Abala Naptain to transfer all the share including suit land/plot of the Suda Napit, also because of the facts reflected from the reading of the exhibited deeds from the side of defendants i.e. from Ext. B, C, E read with Ex1 -F & F/1, where transactions have been shown to be done by alleged vendor's namely Sri Ram Napit claiming himself to derived his title through 1^st Class heir of the said Suda Napit. And further all the defendants witnesses have also supported the facts that Suda Napit had one daughter.”

¶33

11. The learned Trial Court also held that the suit is suffering from non-joinder of necessary parties and is not maintainable in its present form. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on contest.

¶34

12. The learned first Appellate Court also framed similar points for determination as was framed by the learned Trial Court and considered all the materials on record, both oral and documentary, and in Paragraph-14, recorded that it is to be determined as to whether the recorded raiyat Suda Napit died issue-less or leaving behind his

¶35

4

¶36

( 2025:JHHC:13229 )

¶37

heir/daughter Lidhiya Naptain. The learned first Appellate Court ultimately held that Suda Napit had one daughter and recorded that from combined reading of Exhibit- B to E, it also transpires that Abala Naptain and Vidyadhar Napit have stood as witnesses in the registered Deed No. 2087 and 2088 (Exhibit- C and D) which contain the fact that Ram Napit is the legal heir of Suda Napit. The court further recorded that treating Ram Napit as legal heir of Suda Napit, even Subhadra Devi wife of one of the co-sharers namely, Gurupada Napit son of Late Bishu Napit and grandson of the recorded raiyat Shyam Napit has purchased the land from Ram Napit by treating the vendor as legal heir of Suda Napit (Exhibit-B). The learned fist Appellate Court affirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the civil appeal.

¶38

13. This Court finds that both the learned courts have scrutinized the materials on record and have come to concurrent findings with regard to the core issue involved in the case that Suda Napit did not die issue-less, but had one daughter namely, Lidhiya Naptain and have refused to set-aside the registered Sale Deed No. 6093 dated 25.11.2003. This Court finds no perversity in the findings recorded by the learned courts.

¶39

14. This Court is of the considered view that no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal.

¶40

15. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed.

¶41

16. Pending I.A., if any, is dismissed as not pressed.

¶42

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶43

Arpit

¶44

5