Yasoda Devi And Ors. Vs Malawati Devi Alias Malti Devi And Ors.

¶1

2025:JHHC:27318

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

S.A. No. 498 of 2017

¶4

Yasoda Devi, wife of Late Sripati Singh Choudhary.

¶5

Tripuraree Singh Choudhary, son of Late Sripati Singh Choudhary.

¶6

Geeta Devi, wife of Late Pawan Kumar Singh Choudhary.

¶7

Subas Singh Choudhary @ Subhash Singh Choudhary, son of Pawan Kumar Singh Choudhary

¶8

Menka Devi, wife of Mirtynjay Rai and daughter of Late Pawan Kumar Singh Choudhary, resident of village Behra, P.O. Fulchuwan, P.S. Sarath, District Deoghar.

¶9

Pami Devi, wife of Pankaj Singh, daughter of Late Pawan Kumar Singh, resident of Legwa, P.O. Koron, P.S. Chitra, District Deoghar. 7. Dhurbeshwar Singh Choudhary, son of Late Sripati Singh Choudhary.

¶10

Ganesh Singh Choudhary, son of Late Sripati Singh Choudhary, R/o Village- Chutiaro, P.O. Kharni, P.S. Barwadda (Govindpur), Dist.- Dhanbad.

¶11

Kalawati Devi, wife of Arun Kumar Singh and daughter of Sripati Singh Choudhary, resident of village Damakunda [Pachimkana (I)], P.O. Charakmara, P.S. Sarat, District Deoghar, presently residing at 4 K-42, Shivajee Park, Alwar, P.O. & P.S. Alwar, District Rajasthan. Appellant nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are residents of village Chutiaro, P.O. Kharni, P.S. Barwadda (Govindpur), District Dhanbad.

¶12

… … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants

¶13

Versus

¶14

Malawati Devi @ Malti Devi, wife of Madan Mohan Choudhary.

¶15

Shyam Narayan Choudhary, son of Badri Narayan Choudhary.

¶16

Manohar Singh Choudhary, son of Shyam Narayan Choudhary.

¶17

Praful Singh Choudhary, son of Shyam Narayan Choudhary. Respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are residents of village Chutiaro, P.O. Kharni, P.S. Barwadda (Govindpur), District Dhanbad.

¶18

Rena Devi, wife of Nirman Singh, resident of village Behragowan, P.S. Sarath, Ρ.Ο. Bhanawan, District Deoghar.

¶19

Kailash Prasad Singh Choudhary.

¶20

Kasinath Singh Choudhary.

¶21

Respondent nos. 6 and 7 are sons of Shiblal Singh Choudhary, residents of village Chutiaro, P.O. Kharni, P.S. Barwadda (Govindpur), District Dhanbad.

¶22

Manju Devi, wife of Sushil Kumar Singh Choudhary, daughter of Late Pratima Debya, resident of village Chutiaro, P.O. Kharni, P.S. Barwadda (Govindpur), District Dhanbad, at present residing at Qr. No. G VI-I, Jharnadih, Chandapur, P.O. & P.S. Chanrapur, District Bokaro.

¶23

Kamla Devi, wife of Laxmi Narayan Singh, daughter of Late Shiblal Singh Choudhary, resident of village Manramo, P.O. Manramo, P.S. Bagodar, District Giridih.

¶24

2025:JHHC:27318

¶25

Menka Devi, wife of Nageshwar Prasad Baiya, daughter of Late Shiblal Singh Choudhary, resident of village Tandhere, P.O. Bagjojra, P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar.

¶26

Champa Devi, daughter of Late Shivlal Singh Choudhary, wife of Murlishah, resident of village Shahgovindpur, Ρ.Ο. Haripurkolwa, P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar.

¶27

Dhananjay Prasad Rai, son of Abhinash Prasad Rai, resident of village Pansari, Ρ.Ο. Bamangawan, P.S. Sarath, District Deoghar.

¶28

Vijay Prasad Rai, son of Abhinash Prasad Rai.

¶29

Bibhuti Prasad Rai, son of Abhinash Prasad Rai.

¶30

Niranjan Prasad Rai, son of Abhinash Prasad Rai.

¶31

Panchnand Prasad Rai, son of Abhinash Prasad Rai.

¶32

Respondent nos. 13 to 16 are residents of village Pansari, P.O. Bamangawan, P.S. Sarath, District Deoghar.

¶33

Daropati Devi, wife of Gorang Prasad Rai, daughter of Late Sharma Devi, resident of village Telaria, P.O. Sarath, P.S. Sarawan, District Deoghar. 18. Parwati Devi, wife of Bibhashan Rai @ Babloo Rai, daughter of Late Sharma Deví, resident of village Khandra, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar.

¶34

Sanjay Kumar Rai.

¶35

Ranjay Kumar Rai. Respondent nos. 19 and 20 are sons of Baldeo Prasad Rai, and Late Nisoda Devi, residents of village Hariadangal, P.O. Dumaria, P.S. Palojori, District Deoghar. 21. Veena Devi, daughter of Baldeo Prasad Rai, wife of Ashok Kumar Singh, resident of village Panduwa, P.S. Karown, District Deoghar (Dumka).

¶36

Bebi Devi, daughter of Baldeo Prasad Rai, wife of Pradeep Choudhary, resident of village Marhi, P.O. Bhichkorwa (Marhi), P.S. Chakia, District Munger, Bihar.

¶37

Saraswati Devi, daughter of Late Ruplal Singh Choudhary, wife of Mahendra Singh, resident village Deoradih, P.O. Manramo, P.S. Bagodar, District Giridih.

¶38

Chakradhar Singh Choudhary, son of Late Ruplal Singh Choudhary. 25. Balram Singh Choudhary, son of Ruplal Singh Choudhary. Respondent nos. 24 and 25 are residents of village Chutiaro, P.O. Kharni, P.S. Barwadda (Govindpur), District Dhanbad.

¶39

Maheshwar Prasad Bhaiya, son of Bholanath Bhaiya, resident of village Sheikhpura, P.O. Pattajoria, P.S. & District Jamtara. (Dead and substituted vide order dated 24.07.2024) 26(a) Ramdeo Bhaiya 26(b) Rajdeo Bhaiya 26(c) Madan Bhaiya 26(d) Mritunjay Bhaiya @ Fultus Bhaiya, All sons of Late Mahesh Prasad Bhaiya

¶40

R/o vill.- Shekhpura, P.O. Pattajoria, P.S. Karmatanr, District Jamtara 26(e) Gayitri Devi, D/o Late Mahesh Prasad Bhaiya, W/o Sunil Singh, R/o vill.- Shobhri Lakhi, P.O. and P.S. Lakhisarai, District Lakhisarai (Bihar).

¶41

2

¶42

2025:JHHC:27318

¶43

26(f) Baby Devi, D/o Late Mahesh Prasad Bhaiya, W/o Satyanarayan rai, R/o Vill.- Logai, P.O. Jhajha, P.S. and District- Jamui (Bihar).

¶44

Baski Prasad Bhaiya, son of Bholanath Bhaiya, resident of village Sheikhpura, P.O. Pattajoria, P.S. & District Jamtara.

¶45

Bishnu Prasad Bhaiya, son of Bholanath Bhaiya, resident of village Sheikhpura, P.O. Pattajoria, P.S. & District Jamtara.

¶46

Madhuri Devi, wife of Late Barma Prasad Bhuiya, resident of village Sheikhpura, P.O. Pattajoria, P.S. Jamtara (Karmatanr), District Jamtara.

¶47

Pintu Kumar Bhuiya.

¶48

Binay Kumar Bhuiya.

¶49

Respondent nos. 30 and 31 are sons of Late Barma Prasad Bhuiya, resident of village Sheikhpura, P.O. Pattajoria, P.S. Karmatanr, District Jamtara.

¶50

Anu Devi, daughter of late Burma Prasad Bhuiya, wife of late Raj Kishore Singh, resident of village Teljhari, P.O. Ratabahiar, P.S. Ganday, District Giridih.

¶51

… … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents

¶52

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶53

--For the Appellants : Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate For the Respondents : ---

¶54

13 /08.09.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 08.08.2017 (decree sealed and signed on 21.08.2017) passed by learned District Judge-XV, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 44 of 2013 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants has been dismissed and the judgment dated 18.03.2013 (decree signed on 22.03.2013) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-V, Dhanbad in Partition Suit No. 107 of 1997 has been affirmed. The learned trial court had dismissed the suit. The suit was dismissed, the 1^st appeal was also dismissed and the plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court.

¶55

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that both the learned courts have failed to consider that there is presumption of jointness with respect to joint family. He has also submitted that the plaintiffs had sought partition with respect to plot no. 224 area 8 decimal by asserting that the said property is the joint and Ijmal property of Madhusudan Singh Choudhary which was never partitioned by metes and bounds amongst the co-sharers and heirs of

¶56

3

¶57

2025:JHHC:27318

¶58

Late Madhusudan Singh Choudhary. He submits that other plots were partitioned, but this property was not partitioned and therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to 1/4^th share in the suit property. The learned counsel has further submitted that the defendant nos. 3 to 5 had executed sale-deeds in favour of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 vide sale deed nos. 450 and 451 both dated 25.01.1977 and the sale-deeds were also challenged in the suit. The learned counsel has submitted that both the courts have not considered the aforesaid aspects of the matter and accordingly, substantial question of law be framed and decided.

¶59

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that the suit was filed for the following reliefs:

¶60

a) Preliminary decree for partition be passed regarding suit land.

¶61

b) Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner be appointed for effecting partition of the plaintiff’s 1/4^th share i.e. 2 decimals of land.

¶62

c) Decree of declaration may also be passed to the effect that sale deed No. 450 and 451 dated 25.01.77 executed by defendant No. 3 to 5 in favour of defendant No. 1 to 2 is void document.

¶63

5. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that plot no. 224 was recorded in the name of Madhusudan Singh Choudhary and the said land was possessed by him as landlord and after vesting, he filed return to the State of Bihar which included plot no. 224 also. He died leaving behind his 3 sons namely, Ruplal Singh Choudhary, Shiblal Singh Choudhary, Sripati Singh Choudhary and one daughter namely, Amumani Devi. Ruplal Singh Choudhary died leaving behind two sons namely, Balram Singh Choudhary and Chakradhar Singh Choudhary and three daughters namely, Sharma Devi, Nishodha Devi and Sarswati Devi. Nishodha Devi also died leaving behind two sons namely, Sanjay Kumar Ray and Ranjan Kumar Ray and two daughters namely Veena Devi and Baby Devi. Further, Shiblal Singh Choudhary died leaving behind his widow Susheela Devi, two sons namely, Kailash Prasad Singh Choudhary and Kasinath Singh Choudhary and

¶64

4

¶65

2025:JHHC:27318

¶66

four daughters namely, Pratima Devi, Kamla Devi, Menka Devi and Champa Devi. Sripati Singh Choudhary also died leaving behind his widow Yashoda Devi, five sons namely, Tripuraree Singh Choudhary , Pawan Kumar Singh Choudhary, Dhurbeshwar Singh Choudhary, Ganesh Singh Choudhary and Basisth Singh Choudhary and one daughter namely, Kamla Devi. The legal heirs of the Late Sripati Singh Choudhary are plaintiffs in the present case.

¶67

6. It was the specific case of the plaintiffs that the said property was joint property and was never partitioned by metes and bounds. So far as other plots are concerned, there had been partition and accordingly, it was the case of the plaintiffs that they were entitled to 1/4^th share of the property involved in the present case. It was also pleaded by the plaintiffs that the sale-deeds executed by defendant nos. 3 to 5 in favour of defendant nos. 1 and 2 transferring the entire plot no. 224 was a void document. 7. The defendants admitted the fact that Madhusudan Singh Choudhary was a tenure holder in respect of plot no. 224, but denied that plot no. 224 was joint property. It was also stated that after death of Madhusudan Singh Choudhary, the heirs amicably made oral partition in the year 1967 and plot no. 224 was also included in the said partition which came in the share of Shiblal Singh Choudhary. It was denied that except plot no. 224, all other plots were partitioned.

¶68

8. It was also asserted by the defendants that the father of the plaintiff nos. 2 to 7 and husband of plaintiff no. 1 namely, Sripati Singh Choudhary himself had executed a registered sale-deed dated 12.06.1972 in favour of Baldeo Singh Choudhary transferring 27 decimals land of plot no. 428. It was also stated that Shiblal Singh Choudhary transferred 5 decimals of land to defendant no. 2 and 3 decimals of land to defendant no. 1 vide two registered sale-deeds dated 25.01.1977 and since then, defendant nos. 1 and 2 were in possession of the entire 8 decimal of plot no. 224 and in the recent survey settlement, the plot no. 224, new plot no. 208 has been recorded in the name of defendant nos. 1 and 2 and they have been paying rent of plot no. 224.

¶69

5

¶70

2025:JHHC:27318

¶71

9. The learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration:

¶72

(1) Is the suit of the plaintiff maintainable in its present form?

¶73

(2) Is there any cause of action for the suit?

¶74

(3) Is the suit barred by limitation?

¶75

(4) Is the suit barred by principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence?

¶76

(5) Is the suit barred by res judicata?

¶77

(6) Has the suit property been valued properly and is the court fee paid thereon sufficient?

¶78

(7) Have the plaintiffs got right, title and possession in the disputed property to the extent of 1/4^th share i.e., 2 decimal?

¶79

(8) Whether the suit is hit by the provisions of the CNT Act?

¶80

(9) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree of partition and permanent injunction as per the prayer made in the plaint?

¶81

(10)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any other relief or reliefs?

¶82

10. From the perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial court, it further appears that a petition under section 87 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was also filed by the plaintiffs which was pending. It was submitted by the defendants that the petition under section 87 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act was also dismissed.

¶83

11. The learned trial court ultimately decided issue no. (7) and after considering the materials on record, held that the plaintiffs do not have any right, title and interest over the suit property and the suit property was not a joint family property. While deciding the issue nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9, the learned trial court also recorded that the oral and documentary evidences revealed that the entire property was already partitioned. By considering oral evidences of the plaintiffs, the learned trial court came to a finding that they also deposed that after the partition, the respective parties took possession of their individual shares. The learned court recorded that under such circumstances, there was no question of any partition again.

¶84

6

¶85

2025:JHHC:27318

¶86

12. The plaintiffs filed appeal and the learned 1^st appellate court framed the following point for determination in paragraph 15 of its judgment:

¶87

“Whether there is unity of title or unity of possession of the parties in the suit land. Secondly whether the plea of previous partition as alleged by defendant No. 1 to 5 is true.”

¶88

13. The learned 1^st appellate court recorded in paragraph 19 that in view of the fact that the severance of joint family was accepted by the plaintiffs, it was for the plaintiffs to prove that as far as plot No. 224 is concerned, the same was still a joint property. The learned court also considered the evidences of the plaintiffs and also recorded that it was an admitted fact that in recent survey operation, the disputed plot was recorded in the name of defendant nos. 1 and 2 and it was an admitted fact that the challenge to that entry was made, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn. The learned court ultimately recorded that nowhere in the entire trial of the suit, it was even suggested as to why plot no. 224 was not partitioned. No documentary evidence was brought on record to suggest that the plaintiffs were in possession of 1/4^th area of the disputed land. On the other hand, the defendants brought on record two sale-deeds (exhibit-B and B/1) numbered as 450 and 451 both dated 25.01.1977 which went to show that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 had purchased the entire plot no. 224 of khata no. 58 from defendant nos. 3 and 5 and they were in possession of the suit property. The learned 1^st appellate court also held that there was no doubt that there was previous partition amongst the co-sharers about 30 years before and then, it was impermissible to raise the issue that such plot was not partitioned. The learned 1^st appellate court ultimately dismissed the appeal.

¶89

14. This Court is of the view that there are concurrent findings of both the learned courts with regard to previous partition and the property also stood recorded in the name of defendant nos. 1 and 2 who were found in possession of the property and the plaintiffs could not bring on record any material to show that plot no. 224 was

¶90

7

¶91

2025:JHHC:27318

¶92

excluded at the time of previous partition. The previous partition was admitted but it was the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property was not included in the previous partition which they miserably failed to prove.

¶93

15. This Court finds that both the learned courts have passed reasoned judgments taking into consideration every aspect of the matter. The learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show any perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by both the learned courts. There is no substantial question of law involved in the present case.

¶94

16. This 2^nd appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶95

17. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶96

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶97

Pankaj

¶98

8

Yasoda Devi And Ors. v. Malawati Devi Alias Malti Devi And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yasoda Devi And Ors. v. Malawati Devi Alias Malti Devi And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chaman Mahto And Ors. Vs Smt.Hulia Devi And Ors.

MD Akhtar Vs MD Mokhtar

Safique Mirdaha And Ors. Vs Nayeem Mirdaha And Ors.

Kamrul Hoda alias Qumrul Hoda Vs Bigal Devi And Ors.

Hari Das Mahto And Ors. Vs Bhola Mahto And Ors.

Lakhan Gope Vs Kali Chandra Sharma