Dismissed¶¶60

Rokan Oraon And Ors. v. Jagna Oraon And Ors.

Jharkhand HC2 Feb 2026SA/630/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Previous partition; separation in mess and cultivation; partition by metes and bounds; Bahisse Barabar endorsement; Khata No. 44 and Khata No. 90; khatian/record of rights of 1932 revisional survey; joint deposit of revenue rent; unity of title and unity of possession; substantial question of law; second appeal dismissed; Partition Suit No. 44 of 2005; Title Appeal No. 05 of 2014; District Judge-III Gumla; Civil Judge Sr. Division-II Gumla; Jharkhand High Court; Hadi Ram Puran v. Haremohan Puran 2005 (1) JCR 12 (Jhr.); S.A. No. 39/1995 (R).

What did the court decide?

The learned first appellate court duly discussed the documentary and oral evidences and came to a finding that there has been no partition between the parties by metes and bounds and there was unity of title and unity of possession with respect to the suit property. ¶¶53

Rokan Oraon And Ors. Vs Jagna Oraon And Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether there was a previous partition between the parties (issue no. 3 before the learned trial court), the appellants contending the parties were separate in mess and cultivation since prior to the revisional survey of 1932. +1 more

¶¶40

Court's answer

¶¶53

Ratio / Principle

Mere separation in mess and cultivation does not amount to a proof of previous partition, that too partition by metes and bounds.

¶¶54

Key takeaways

S.A. No. 39/1995 (R) relied upon by the appellants is clearly distinguishable, because in that case there were dealings of the property amongst the plaintiffs inter-se, a fact neither pleaded nor borne out by evidence in the present case.ratio¶¶54
The judgment in Hadi Ram Puran (2005 (1) JCR 12 (Jhr.)) does not help the appellants: it was passed in first appellate jurisdiction, where separate possession of respective descendants was recorded in the cadastral survey operation apart from the parties being separate in mess and property; ex facie it does not apply to the facts of this case.ratio¶¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal (S.A. No. 630 of 2015, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi) arising from Partition Suit No. 44 of 2005, Gumla. The defendant nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 appealed against the judgment dated 04.09.2015 of the District Judge-III, Gumla in Title Appeal No. 05 of 2014, which had allowed the plaintiffs' first appeal and reversed the trial court's dismissal of the partition suit. Sole contention: there was a previous partition between the parties prior to the 1932 revisional survey, the parties being separate in mess and cultivation, supported by reliance on S.A. No. 39/1995 (R) and Hadi Ram Puran v. Haremohan Puran, 2005 (1) JCR 12 (Jhr.). The first appellate court had found, from the record of rights of Khata Nos. 44 and 90 (Exts. 2, 2/a), that plots were entered as joint family property with 'Bahisse Barabar' endorsement, revenue rent was jointly deposited, and there was unity of title and unity of possession, allotting 1/5th share to each party. Held by this Court: (i) the first appellate court duly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly found no partition by metes and bounds; (ii) mere separation in mess and cultivation does not amount to proof of previous partition, much less partition by metes and bounds; (iii) S.A. No. 39/1995 (R) is clearly distinguishable, dealings of property inter se existing there but not here; (iv) 2005 (1) JCR 12 (Jhr.) does not apply, being a first-appeal decision in which separate possession was recorded in the cadastral survey. No substantial question of law being involved, the prayer to frame one was rejected and the appeal was dismissed; pending I.A., if any, closed.

¶1

2026:JHHC:2654

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

S.A. No. 630 of 2015

¶4

Rokan Oraon

¶5

Puran Oraon Both sons of Sudhwa Oraon

¶6

Jairam Oraon

¶7

Jhagu Oraon Appellant nos. 3 & 4 sons of Manga Oraon.

¶8

All resident of village Okba, P.O. & P.S. Basia, District Gumla

¶9

… … Defendant nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5/Respondents/Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Jagna Oraon

¶12

Etwa Oraon

¶13

Banu Oraon

¶14

Budhwa Oraon Respondent nos. 1 to 4 sons of Late Jatoo Oraon

¶15

Madho Oraon

¶16

Ranthu Oraon

¶17

Lohra Oraon Respondent nos. 5 to 7 sons of Late Mangroo Oraon

¶18

Chamru Oraon, son of Charo Oraon

¶19

Biguwa Oraon

¶20

10.Marwari Oraon Respondent nos. 9 and 10 sons of Dhunjuwa Oraon

¶21

11.Jatru Oraon

¶22

12.Gandur Oraon Respondent nos. 11 to 12 sons of Murla Oraon

¶23

13.Etwa Oraon

¶24

14.Laduwa Oraon Respondent nos. 13 to 14 sons of Sukhia Oraon

¶25

15.Bhiku Oraon, son of Late Patras Oraon

¶26

16.Mangu Oraon, son of Late Maghi Oraon All resident of village Okba, P.O. & P.S. Basia, District Gumla

¶27

… … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Respondents

¶28

17.Sukra Oraon, son of Sudhwa Oraon, resident of village Okba, P.O. & P.S. Basia, District Gumla

¶29

… … Defendant no. 3/Respondent/Proforma Respondent

¶30

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶31

¶32

2026:JHHC:2654

¶33

--For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : ---

¶34

05/2^nd February 2026

¶35

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf the appellants.

¶36

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 04.09.2015 (decree sealed and signed on 18.09.2015) passed by the learned District Judge-III, Gumla in Title Appeal No. 05 of 2014, whereby the appeal has been allowed and the judgment dated 18.12.2013 (decree sealed and signed on 23.12.2013) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division-II, Gumla in Partition Suit No. 44 of 2005 has been reversed.

¶37

3. The suit was dismissed and the appeal was allowed and consequently, the defendant nos. 1, 2 4, and 5 are the appellants before this Court.

¶38

4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the parties were separate in mess and cultivation and there was a partition prior to revisional survey in the year 1932 and since they were separate in mess and cultivation, therefore the learned trial court rightly recorded that there was previous partition, but the learned 1^st appellate court has wrongly interfered with the judgment passed by the learned trial court and reversed the finding and decreed the suit.

¶39

5. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in S.A. No. 39/1995 (R) and also the judgment reported in [2005 (1) JCR 12 (Jhr.)] (Hadi Ram Puran & Others vs. Haremohan Puran & Others).

¶40

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and considering the sole argument, which has been advanced with regard to previous partition which was issue no. 3 before the learned trial court, this Court finds that the issue no. 3 was decided vide paragraph 15 of the trial court’s judgment and the learned trial court recorded that no documentary evidence in connection with previous partition was placed on record, but

¶41

¶42

2026:JHHC:2654

¶43

on the basis of oral evidences was of the view that when both the parties were separate in mess and cultivation since prior to 1964, it will be assumed that there was previous partition between the parties. The learned trial court also referred to Exhibit-1, 1/a, 2 and 2/a and observed that the same do not prove that there was no previous partition between the parties. However, contents of these exhibits have not been discussed while giving the finding on issue no. 3.

¶44

7. The learned 1^st appellate court has discussed the documentary evidences and observed that there were several recorded tenants with respect to khata no. 44 and 90 and the plaintiffs and defendants are the descendants of those recorded tenants. The plaintiffs claimed that there was no previous partition and the defendants claimed that there was previous partition and that the witnesses of the plaintiffs stated that the plaintiffs and defendants were cultivating the land in accordance with their convenience. Even the evidence of the defendants and produced the revenue receipts showed that the rent was being jointly deposited by the parties. The court , interalia, recorded that from perusal of the Ext. 2 , certified copy of Khata No. 44 it transpired that Plot no. 157, 158,159, 160, 161 has been mentioned in remark column no. 17 as a joint family property and from perusal of column No.2, where the name of the recorded tenant are mentioned, endorsement has been made as Bahisse Barabar , which clarifies that there has been no partition in between the parties since before Revisional Survey operation held in the year 1932 as claimed by the defendant. The court recorded a finding that it was quite clear that the defendant was not able to establish that there was previous partition in between parties rather the plaintiff has been able to establish that there was no partition among the recorded tenant or their descendants . The finding of the learned 1^st appellate court in paragraph 13 is quoted as under: -

¶45

“ 13. Findings of this court

¶46

Having gone through the above discussion oral and documentary evidence it is clear that there were several recorded tenant in the record of rights whose names have been

¶47

¶48

2026:JHHC:2654

¶49

recorded in the record of right mentioning Khata No. 44 and 90. Plaintiff and defendants are descendants of those recorded tenant. Plaintiff claims that there was no partition whereas defendant claims that there was partition. Witnesses of the plaintiff say that plaintiffs and defendants are cultivating the land according to convenience. D.W.2 in Para 7 has also stated that revenue rent receipt is being deposited jointly by the parties. D.W.3 has stated that 9 acre land was allotted to each co-sharer. This witness has also stated that Banda Parcha has been prepared jointly. From perusal of the case record it transpires that plaintiff side has not been able to file Banda Parcha/Kachcha Parcha in support of the fact that it was prepared jointly. However, from the perusal of revenue rent receipt the Ext.1 to 1/a it is quite clear that it has been issued in the name of Jagna Oraon with respect to land of Khata No.44 and 90 after filing of the suit issued in the year 2007 whereas suit has been filed in the year 2005. The plaintiff has also filed Ext.2 and 2/a showing land in the name of ancestor of plaintiff and defendant prepared in the year 1932 when Revisional Survey operation was going on. This case has been filed in the year 2005 bearing Title Partition Suit No. 44/ 05 but neither of the parties have been able to file any rent receipt obtained from 1932 till 2005. From perusal of the khatian it transpires that nothing has been mentioned with respect to joint land in the remark column of C.C. of Khata No. 90 Vide Ext.2/a to the contrary Kabazbari has been entered showing different measurement of the land in remark column . From perusal of the Ext. 2 C.C. of Khata No. 44 it transpires that Plot no. 157, 158,159, 160, 161 has been mentioned in remark column no. 17 as a joint family property and from perusal of column No.2 where the name of the recorded tenant are mentioned endorsement has been made as Bahisse Barabar which clarifies that there has been no partition in between the parties since before Revisional Survey operation held in the year 1932 as claimed by the defendant. Thus it is quite clear that the defendant has not been able to establish that there was previous partition in between parties rather the plaintiff has been able to establish that there was no partition among the recorded tenant or their descendants. There has been unity of title and unity of possession over the suit land. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the court below is set aside and 1/5^th share is allotted for the each parties in the suit land. Thus both issues are decided in favour of

¶50

¶51

2026:JHHC:2654

¶52

the plaintiff/appellant. From the discussions and reasons mentioned above the appeal is allowed on contest without cost.”

¶53

8. This Court finds that the learned 1^st appellate court has duly discussed the documentary and oral evidences to come to a finding that there has been no partition between the parties by metes and bounds and there was unity of title and unity of possession with respect to the suit property.

¶54

9. So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants passed by this Court in S.A. No. 39/1995 (R) is concerned, on the face of the judgement it clearly distinguishable. In the said case, the parties were not only separate in mess and cultivation, but there was dealings of the property amongst the plaintiffs inter-se which was a strong reason to hold that there was previous partition. No such fact has been pleaded and no such evidence has come up, so far as the present case is concerned. The law is well settled that mere separation in mess and cultivation does not amount to a proof of previous partition, that too partition by metes and bound.

¶55

10. So far as the judgment passed by this Court in [2005 (1) JCR 12 (Jhr.] (supra) is concerned, the same was passed in the 1^st appellate jurisdiction and in the said case in the cadastral survey operation, separate possession of respective descendants was also recorded apart from being parties separate in mess and property. This judgment also does not help the appellants in any manner in view of the findings recorded by the learned 1^st appellate court based on appreciation of materials based on record. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid judgments ex-facie do not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case and do not help the appellants.

¶56

11. This Court is of the view that the learned 1^st appellate court has done the needful and has rightly held that there was no previous partition between the parties by metes and bounds and there was unity of title and unity of possession. The prayer to frame substantial question of law on the

¶57

¶58

2026:JHHC:2654

¶59

point of previous partition is rejected. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants. No perversity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the learned 1^st appellate court.

¶60

12. This Court finds that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed .

¶61

13. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

¶62

14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’.

¶63

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶64

Dated: 02.02.2026 Mukul/-

¶65

Uploaded On:04.02.2026