1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

First Appeal No. 277 of 2018

------

Kadmi Devi (Deaf and Dumb), Aged about 47 years, Daughter of

Parmeshwar Yadav, by faith Hindu, presently residing with her father at

Village-Amba, P.O + P.S-Jaermundi (Taljhari) Subdivision and District-

Dumka (Jharkhand), village Birjamun, P.S-Sonaraithari (Sarawan),

Subdivision + Dist-Deoghar.

....... Appellant/Defendant

Versus

1.Smt. Jhilia Devi, Wife of Jagdish Mahato, aged about 60 years

2.Nagdi Mahato, aged about 40 years

3.Anadi Mahato, aged about 35 years

Both sons of Jagdish Mahato

All by faith Hindu, by occupation cultivator.

Present Address-Village-Heth Tinghara, P.S-Jarmundi (Taljhari) Sub +

Dist-Dumka.

....... Respondents/Plaintiffs

4. Basudeo Yadav, Son of Ghanshyam Yadav, Resident of Village-

Birjamun Birja, P.S-Sarath, Sub-Madhupur, District-Deoghar.

5. (i) Kunti Devi aged about 65 years wife of late Dhaneshwar Yadav

(ii) Rajendra Yadav, aged about 45 years S/o late Dhaneshwar Yadav,

Both resident of Village-Heth Tinghara, P.O-Jarmundi (Taljhari)

Subdivision-Dumka, Dist-Dumka.

....... Respondents/Defendants

------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

-----

For the Appellant

: Mr. Manoj Kumar No.4, Advocate

For Resp. no.1 to 3 : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate

For Resp. no.4 & 5 : Mr. Vipul Poddar, Amicus Curiae

-------

Order No. 21: Dated 3^rd February, 2023:

Per: Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

I.A. No.4930 of 2019

Heard the parties.

2.

This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the

delay of 203 days, which has occurred in preferring the present appeal.

3.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances as mentioned in the

application and also considering the facts that no counter affidavit has

been filed opposing the interlocutory application by the respondents, we

2

are of the opinion that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause

from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

4.

Accordingly, the delay of 203 days in preferring the present

appeal is hereby condoned and this application stands allowed.

F.A No.277 of 2018

5.

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the

Family Court’s Act, 1984 whereby and whereunder the Judgment dated

30.11.2017 passed by Sri Birendra Pratap, learned Principal Judge,

Family Court, Dumka in Original Suit No.61 of 2012 has been assailed

by which the petition filed by the respondent nos.1 to 3 under Section 7

(b) of the Family Court Act has been allowed on contest and

appellant/respondent no.1 has been held to be not legally married wife

of the deceased, Konka Mahato who was the full blood brother of

plaintiff no.1/petitioner no.1.

6.

The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the plaint,

reads hereunder as:

One Maru Mahato @ Mahru Mahato was one of the recorded

tenant of last jamabandi no.1 of Mouza Heth Tinghara, who died in the

year 1970, leaving his widow, one daughter Jhilia Devi and a son

Konka Mahato. The plaintiff no.2 and 3 are sons of plaintiff no.1. The

said Konka Mahato, full blood brother of the plaintiff no.1 had been

married with one Shushila Devi daughter of one Mahadeo Mahato of

village Hiranmara within Jarmundi P.S. of Dumka subdivision. Said

Sushila Devi wife of Konka Mahato predeceased her husband, having

died issue less in the year 1995 and thereafter Konka Mahato also died

3

in the year 1997 leaving behind his full blood sister the plaintiff no.1 as

his sole legal heir and legal representative and accordingly the plaintiff

no.1 has inherited the entire property which was initially belonging to

the recorded tenant Mahru Mahato. Defendant no.1 is legally married

wife of defendant no.2, and their marriage is still subsisting an