Bali Mohuli and Ors. Vs Sudhir Mohuli and Ors.

¶1

[2026:JHHC:10621]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 226 of 2014

¶3

Sugni Mohuli wife of Mohan Mohuli D/o late Biram Mohuli,

¶4

Geeta Mohulin wife of Mantu Mohuli D/o late Biram Mohuli, resident of Village-Jagannathpur, P.O.Manihari, P.S. Bindapathar, District-Jamtara. At present r/o Village & P.O.-Charanpur, P.S. Domhani, DistrictBurdwan (W.B).

¶5

Mala Mohulin wife of Nimai Mohuli D/o late Biram Mohuli, resident of Village-Pakuria, P.O.-Baragholjore, P.S.-Nala, District-Jamtara.

¶6

..... … Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sudhir Mohuli son of late Suku Mohuli.

¶9

Monilal Mohuli son of Suku Mohuli.

¶10

Shyamapada Mohuli son of late Suru Mohuli, resident of Village- Jagannathpur, P.O.-Manihari, P.S.Nala, District-Jamtara.

¶11

The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara, P.O., P.S. and District-Jamtara. ..... …

¶12

..... … Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶15

-----For the Appellants : Mr. N.P. Choudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. D.C. Mishra, Advocate.

¶16

------ 17/ 15.04.2026 Heard Mr. N.P. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. D.C. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶17

This second appeal has been filed by the defendants / appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 25.08.2014 and the decree following thereupon signed on 04.09.2014, passed in Title Appeal No. 32 of 2014, by the Principal District Judge, Jamtara, by which, the said appeal has been dismissed by way of affirming the judgment dated 30.04.2014 and the decree signed on

¶18

-1-

¶19

[2026:JHHC:10621]

¶20

15.05.2014, passed in Title (P) Suit No. 11 of 2005, by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jamtara.

¶21

Title Partition Suit No. 11 of 2005 was instituted for partition and coming out the separate share of the parties.

¶22

Learnd counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there are substantial questions of law involved in this second appeal, in view of that this second appeal may kindly be admitted. According to him, the learned courts have failed to decide the customary law of inheritance and in view of that this second appeal is having the substantial question of law for admission. On this ground, he submits that this second appeal may kindly be admitted.

¶23

From the judgment of the learned courts, it transpires that the case of the plaintiffs/ appellants was that the plaintiffs as well as the Principal defendants are by caste Mohili, but since time immemorial they have adopted Hinduism for all purposes inclusive of inheritance and succession besides their cultural formalities. The properties described in the Scheduled -A appended to the plaint originally belongs to Bhola Mohali, Gopi Mohali and Kisto Mohali during the last survey settlement, who hold the same appertain to joint khata No. 32 of mouza Jagannathpur. The properties described in the schedule-B of the plaint stands over the joint Khatian and the parties to the suit are in joint possession. The relationship of the parties to the suit inter-se and along with the joint recorded tenants. Plaintiffs have further submitted that the recorded tenant having their joint interest were recorded in the last survey settlement appertaining to joint Khata No. 32 of mouza Jagannathpur but their respective possession over joint lands were recorded in the remark column of the purcha.

¶24

The recorded tenants so long they were alive remained

¶25

-2-

¶26

[2026:JHHC:10621]

¶27

joint in the eye of law, but possessed the lands in suit as per their respective possession as a result of amicably family arrangement and recorded as such. Out of the recorded tenants Kisto Mohali, being the eldest, died first leaving his only son Gobindo-Mohali who continued to possess the suit properties in continuation of jointness along with other recorded tenants Bhola Mohali and Gopi Mohali. Thereafter, recorded tenant Gopi Mohali, a widower, died issue less leaving behind his nephew Bhola as his sole legal heir and successor. The recorded tenant Bhola Mohali had no male issue but a daughter Kuturi Mohalin hence, the said Bhola Mohali got his daughter Kuturi's married with Dukhu Mohali and kept him as Gharjamai as per their cultural rituals. The said Bhola Mohali subsequently died leaving behind Kuturi Mohalin and Ghardamad Dukhu Mohali as his legal heirs and successors. Gobinda Mohali in continuation of jointness with Kuturi Mohalin and Dukhu Mohali died leaving his only son Biram Mohali, the defendant no. 1. Subsequently Kuturi Mohalin and Duikhu Mohalin also died leaving their only son Rai Mohali who succeeded the interest of his grand-father Bhola Mohali in the lands in suit in jointness with defendant Biram Mohali. Subsequently Rai Mohali died leaving his two sons Suku Mohali and Suru Mohali who also continued jointness in regard to suit properties along with Biram Mohali and continued to possess the same as per possession. Subsequently Suku Mohali died leaving his two sons Sudhir Mohali and Manilal Mohali, Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 herein and Suru Mohali died leaving only son Shyamapada Mohali plaintiff No. 3 in the suit.

¶28

The plaintiffs have further submitted that principal

¶29

-3-

¶30

[2026:JHHC:10621]

¶31

defendants are still in jointness with regard to suit properties described in schedule-A and B and they are possessing as per record of possession without amounting to partition by metes and bounds. For some time past the plaintiffs felt some inconvenience in joint possession of suit properties, they approached the principal defendants for amicable partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds on 05-04-05 at village Jagannathpur but the defendant flatly refuse to conceal the partition by metes and bounds and the plaintiffs having no other alternative are force to file this partition suit. The plaintiffs are entitled to ½ (half) share out of the suit properties mentioned in the schedule and are entitled to curve out their share from the joint stock while the other ½ (half) will remain as share of the defendant no. 1 the cause of action of the suit arose on and from 05-04-05 at mouza Jagannathpur within the jurisdiction of this court.

¶32

In light of the judgments of learned courts, the case of the defendant was that a written statement has been filed on behalf of defendant on 03-01- 06 and submitted that there is no cause of action for the suit and the suit is barred under the law estoppal for claiming partition of the scheduled land. This suit is also bad for non joinder and mis-joinder of the parties. This suit is not maintainable in law and barred by waiver acquiescence and estoppal. It is further submitted that all assertions made in the plaint are denied by the defendant and submitted for strict proof except some paras. Defendant admitted para 1 of the plaint partly and partly denied because of the fact that defendant as usually as plaintiffs are by caste Mohali comes under scheduled Tribes and they have their own culture and they are not guided by the Hindu law and the parties have not adopted Hinduism as

¶33

-4-

¶34

[2026:JHHC:10621]

¶35

alleged in para 1 of the plaint. The properties described in schedule-B are exclusive properties of the defendant. The genealogical table is not correct. Gopi Mohali died first thereafter Kisto Mohali died living behind only son Govindo continue to possess the suit properties after the death of recorded tenant Bhola Mohali, as Bhola Mohali also died issueless and he had no daughter namely Kutri Mohalin and the plaintiff has given imaginary name of Kuturi Mohalin in the genealogical table only to grab the land of this defendant. Dukhu Mohali was outsider and is not linked with the recorded tenant Bhola Mohali as alleged that Dukhu Mohali was kept as gharjamai is also false and he was not legal heirs and successors of the (RT) of Bhola Mohali. It is further submitted that para-II of the plaint is also not admitted because after the death of the RT tenants Govindo Mohali father of this defendant was the sole heir and successor of all the recorded tenants and after the death of the Gobindo Mohali this defendant is the only heir and successor of all the recorded tenants and possessing the whole land of JB no. 32 of mouza Jagarnathpur and giving the rent. Defendant has further submitted that para - 12 of the plaint is also denied by this defendant because Rai Mohali was no way related to the RT Bhola Mohali and he has no right title, interest over the suit properties. Para- 13 and 14 of the plaint are also denied by this defendant because of the fact that plaintiffs are no way related to the recorded tenant Bhola Mohali, Bhola Mohali also died without any issue along with Gopi Mohali and there is no jointness of the suit properties and this defendant is the sole owner of the suit properties as because the recorded tenant Bhola Mohali and Gopi Mohali died without any issue and the plaintiffs have no right, title interest over the suit properties in the eyes of law. Para- 15 of the plaint is also denied

¶36

-5-

¶37

[2026:JHHC:10621]

¶38

by this defendant because there is no jointness with regard to suit properties and this defendant is the sole heir and successor of the suit properties and possessing the same and giving the rent of the suit properties. Para- 16 of the plaint is also not admitted by this defendant as plaintiffs have got no right title in respect over the suit properties and the defendant is only owner of the suit properties and there is no cause of action for the suit. The plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief or reliefs they claim as they have no right, title, interest over the suit properties and they have filed this suit only to grab the land of this defendant.

¶39

The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Jamtara has decided the said Title (Partition) Suit No. 11 of 2005 by the judgment dated 30^th April, 2014 and decreed the said suit on contest against the defendants without cost and held that the plaintiffs are entitled to ½ (half) share in Schedule-A and Schedule-B properties mentioned in Exhibit-3. Against the said judgment, the appellants / defendants preferred title appeal being Title Appeal No. 32 of 2014, which was decided by the learned Principal District Judge by the judgment dated 25.08.2014, whereby the learned first appellate court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the learned trial court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgments, the present second appeal has been filed.

¶40

Learned trial court while deciding the Title (Partition) Suit No. 11 of 2005, has framed six issues. Issue No. III was with regard to “are the parties Hinduism or are the parties following the Hindu Rites and Customs”.

¶41

Learned trial court has been pleased to take issue Nos. III and II jointly and has considered the oral and documentary evidence

¶42

-6-

¶43

[2026:JHHC:10621]

¶44

and answered the said issue saying that the Caste Mohli is Scheduled Tribe and both the sides have adopted Hinduism for all purpose exclusively of inheritance and succession beside their cultural formalities and further both the defendants and plaintiffs are of the same caste. The learned trial court has also decided the other issues and thereafter the said suit was decreed.

¶45

Aggrieved with the judgment of the trial court, appellant/defendant preferred Title Appeal No. 32 of 2014 before the learned Principal District Judge, Jamtara and the said first appellate court after appreciating all the facts and materials, also dismissed the said appeal by the judgment dated 25.08.2014. The learned first appellate court in para-7 of the said judgment, has also framed two issues to decide the said appeal.

¶46

The learned first appellate court has found that the tribes of Jharkhand consists of 32 tribes inhabiting the Jharkhand State in India. The tribes in Jharkhand were originally classified on the basis of their cultural types by the Indian anthropologist. The learned first appellate court after appreciating the evidences of D.Ws.-1,2 and 3, who are from the same village and the caste claim themselves as Hindu and has found that there is clear cut admission on the part of the defendants that they are Hindu and not Santhal. The learned first appellate court has also found that the defendant herself did not support her written statement, where it is claimed that they are guided by Santhal Customary law. In view of that the learned first appellate court has found that the defendants have given complete go bye to their claim that they are not guided by Hindu Customary law of succession. The learned first appellate court has rightly held that the fact admitted, need not be proved and admission can be made either by the document or by

¶47

-7-

¶48

[2026:JHHC:10621]

¶49

orally. The learned first appellate court has rightly found that the defendant herself and her witnesses have admitted that they are guided by Hindu law of succession and such the finding of the learned trial court on this question is answered as correct not required no interference. This only law point, argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the present second appeal and both the learned courts have given their concurrent finding on that point. Further in course of argument, no perversity has been shown by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that both the learned courts have committed any error.

¶50

It is well settled that in the second appeal, the High Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence and only on the substantial question of law, the second appeal can be admitted. It has been pointed out that the decree has already been executed in the year 2017 itself and half-half share of the property described in Schedule-A and Schedule-B mentioned in Exhibit-3 has already been given to the appellants/defendants and respondent/plaintiffs.

¶51

The court finds that there were concurrent findings of the learned trial court as well as first learned appellate court and the said findings of both the courts are upon appreciation of the entire evidence available on record and therefore unless concurrent findings recorded by the courts were found to be perverse, same was not required to be interfered by the High Court in exercise of powers sitting under Section 100 of the CPC.

¶52

In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, this appeal

¶53

is dismissed.

¶54

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶55

Dated:-15.04.2026 Amitesh/- [A.F.R.]

¶56

-8-

Bali Mohuli and Ors. v. Sudhir Mohuli and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bali Mohuli and Ors. v. Sudhir Mohuli and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Vijay Prasad Mala Vs the State of Jharkhand

Deepak Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kalpana Mandal Alias Kalpana Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sikandra Kumar Yadav @ Sikandra Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Sujeet Kumar Singh Alias Sujeet Kumar Alias Kujeet Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mantu Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand