Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2038
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Shyam Sunder Saw s/o Late Ram Awtar Sah - Appellant
Versus
Babu Nandan Sah, S/o Late Ram Awtar Sah - Respondents
S.A. No. 28 of 2025
Decided On : 27-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :- Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate
The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law was identified, affirming the lower courts' findings on shared ownership under the Hindu Succession Act.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act - Partition - Appeal dismissed regarding claim to one third share in property - Courts upheld finding of entitlement of plaintiff to share in suit property, emphasizing unity of title and absence of persuasive evidence from defendants - Claim of modifying house made by defendant found unsubstantiated. (Paras 5, 6, 9, 10)
(B) Second Appeal - Scope of appellate review limited to substantial questions of law - No re-appreciation of facts - Dismissal of appeal is affirmed as no legal erroneousness was exhibited in lower court judgments. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The suit was initiated by the plaintiff for a declaration of 1/3rd share in a house constructed on land allotted to their father, following which the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, recognizing the rights to the property.
Findings of Court:
Both the trial and appellate courts confirmed plaintiff's legitimate claim under the Hindu Succession Act, ultimately denying the defendant's appeal for lack of merit.
Issues: The main issues included the plaintiffs’ entitlement to the property and the validity of the defendants' claims on the house.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts reinforced the principle of unity of title among heirs and ruled against the absence of credible evidence to disrupt the presumption of shared ownership following the death of the ancestral head.
Result: Second Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction and context of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellant's claim on property and arguments. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. plaintiff's suit specifics and legal standing. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. trial court's findings and evidence assessment. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's dismissal of the appeal and reasoning. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.07.2024 and decree signed on 02.08.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No.34 of 2022 by learned District Judge-IV, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur whereby he has been pleased to dismiss the said appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 29.08.2022 and decree signed on 08.09.2022 passed in Original Suit No.44 of 2017 by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-IV, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur.
3. Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant submits that the suit was decreed holding that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to get one third share in the suit property.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, for admission of the second appeal, only point has argued that the entire property was not the subject matter in the partition suit.
5. Respondents/plaintiffs instituted the Original Suit No.44 of 2017 for preliminary decree declaring for 1/3rd share of the plaintiff over the suit property described in Schedule A and for appointment of survey knowing Pleader Commissioner to demarcate 1/3rd share of the plaintiff over the suit property and for final decree in terms of report of the survey knowing pleader commissioner and cost of the suit and the learned trial court appreciating the evidence oral as well as the documentary and decided the said suit by judgment dated 29th August, 2022 after framing of seven issues and decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled to get one third share in the suit property and aggrieved with that appellant/defendant moved before the appellate court in Civil Appeal No.34 of 2022 which was dismissed by the judgment dated 22nd July, 2024 affirming the judgment of the learned Trial Court.
6. It transpires from the judgment of learned Courts that the case of the plaintiff is that Ram Awtar, the father of plaintiff (Babu Nandan Sah), defendant No.1 (Shyam Sunder Saw) & defendant No. 2 (Kaishalya Debi), was an employee in Tata Steel Ltd. (Proforma Def. No. 4) in Canteen Service having Ticket No. 144958 & Personal No. 27345. Proforma Def. No. 4 allotted land bearing Holding No. E/406, A-Block, Sonari Area, Jamshedpur East, Area 30' X 40' on monthly rent for residential purpose which was affirmed by the proforma defendant by Letter No. LAND/CONV/2065 dt. 16.02.2009. Ram Awtar constructed a residential house (hereinafter mentioned as suit house) on that land and started living with his family members. Ram Awtar died on 08.12.1973 leaving behind his widow Smt. Moti Devi, two sons Shyam Sundar Saw & Babu Nandan Sah and one daughter Kaishalya Debi. Their mother Moti Devi also died on 21.02.2000. The parties are Hindu and governed by HINDU SUCCESSION ACT . No partition of the suit house has taken place. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 & 2 are entitled for their 1/3rd share each in suit house. Plaintiff requested defendant No.1 & 2 to file proper joint application before Proforma defendant No. 4 for mutation of name, but they were avoiding. Plaintiff requested defendant No.1 & 2 to make partition, but they refined on 12.12.2016. The relief claimed for a preliminary decree of partition in the suit house and allotment of 1/3rd share therein, thereafter a Final Decree by appointment of a Survey knowing Pleader Commissioner, cost of the suit and any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff be found entitled.
SCHEDULE 'A'
A Residential House standing on land measuring an area 30 ft x 40 ft. bearing Holding No. E/406, A Block, Sonari, PO & PS- Sonari, Jamshedpur, Distt. Singhbhum East, Jharkhand, bounded as follows
