IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 156 of 2017 Bandru Mahato, son of late Karmu Mahato, resident of Village Kanchanpur, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad.

… … Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant Versus

1 (a).Chandwa Devi, wife of late Hublal Mahato;(Dead & Deleted vide order dated 23.02.2023).

1 (b). Phatik Mahato, son of late Hublal Mahato;

1 (c). Tupan Mahato @ Tupal Mahato, son of late Hublal Mahato;

No. 1. (a) to 1.(c) are residents of Village Kanchanpur, Mahubani, P.O. Dhario, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad.

1 (d). Nehali Devi, daughter of late Hublal Mahato and wife of Churaman Mahato, resident of Mathshpur, P.O. Daludih, P.S. Rajganj, District Dhanbad;

1 (e). Ratni Devi, daughter of late Hublal Mahato and wife of Rooplal Mandal, resident of Sobanpur, P.O. Salgadih, P.S.

Narayanpur, District Jamtara;

1 (f). Parbati Devi, daughter of late Hublal Mahato and wife of Balram Saw, resident of Kenduwa, P.O. & P.S. Kusunda, District Dhanbad;

1 (g). Akli Devi, daughter of late Hublal Mahato and wife of Churaman Mahato, resident of Village Kanchanpur, Mahubani, P.O. Dhario, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad;

1 (h). Mira Devi, daughter of late Hublal Mahato and wife of Goberdhan Mandal, resident of Village Simaila, P.O.

Salgadih, P.S. Narayanpur, District Jamtara.

… … Defendants/Appellants/Respondents

2. Mangru Mahato, son of late Karmu Mahato, resident of Village Kanchapur, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad. … … Defendant/Respondent/Respondent ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Appellant : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate : Mr. Wazid Ali, Advocate : Mr. S.K. Murti, Advocate ---

11/16.01.2025

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 15.02.2017 (decree signed on 21.02.2017) passed by the District & Sessions Judge VIII, Dhanbad in Title appeal No. 38 of 2011 whereby the first appellate court has been pleased to allow the appeal preferred by the respondent and has set aside the judgment dated 31.03.2011 (decree signed on 18.04.2011) passed by learned Sub-Judge VI, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 174 of 1988. The learned Sub-Judge had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff (Appellant herein) and the decree has been set aside by the 1^st appellate court.

3. The suit was filed by the appellant-plaintiff for the following relief:-

a) For cancellation of sale deed No. 14222 dated 15.06.1973 executed by plaintiff’s mother to defendant No.1.

b) For declaration of plaintiff’s half share over an area of 8.14 decimals being the western side of plot No. 1184 specifically and described in the schedule below.

c) For confirmation of possession alternatively if the plaintiff be deemed to have been dispossession, then for recovery of possession.

d) For permanent injunction restraining the defendants from their servant and agents from interfering in any manner if the possession of the plaintiff over the property described in schedule below.

e) For cost of the suit.

f) For any other or further relief to which the plaintiff entitled to.

Schedule District- Dhanbad, P.S. Gobindpur, Mouza- Kanchanpur, Khata No. 38, Plot No. 1184 out of 54 decimals on the western side

13.5 decimals.

North- Tank of the plaintiff, South- Village Road, East- Thakur Mahato’s house, West- Well

4. This appeal was admitted on 24.09.2018 to be heard on following substantial question of law:-

“Whether the learned appellate court had failed to interpret Article 60 and 109 of the Indian Limitation Act as well as Section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act in the correct perspective as there was no partition of the ancestral property belonging to the father of the plaintiff and further the sale deed under challenge did not obtain any permission from the court which is the mandate of Section 8 of the Act of 1956?”

5. The case of the plaintiff in short was that the suit plot under Mouza Kanchanpur was situated under Khata No. 3