Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 469

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J
Mayno Soren – Appellant
Versus
Babu Lal Murmu – Respondent
S.A. No. 185 of 1995(P)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kaushalendra Prasad, Amrita Kumari, Sulekha Sharma
For the Respondents: Jay Prakash Jha, Afaque Ahmad, Aishwarya Prakash

Parties governed by tribal customary law must prove adoption through evidence of essential rituals. A registered adoption deed creates no presumption of validity, and non-substitution of a legal heir results in abatement only if the decree is joint and inseverable, rendering the appeal non-maintainable without the deceased.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 - Order 22 Rule 4 - Abatement of appeal - Non-substitution of legal heirs of a deceased respondent - When the decree is joint and inseverable, the appeal abates in its entirety; otherwise, it only abates regarding the specific interest of the deceased party - Test for abatement is whether the appeal can proceed against other respondents without resulting in inconsistent or contradictory decrees - Where interests are separate or effectively represented by others in the same branch of a family, no abatement in toto occurs. (Paras 49, 50, 58)

(B) Evidence of Adoption - Scheduled Tribe - Customary law - Burden of proof - In the absence of statutory law governing adoption for specific tribal groups, there is no presumption of validity for a registered deed of adoption - The burden lies heavily on the person asserting adoption to prove both the factum of adoption and performance of essential customary ceremonies - Mere production of a registered document without proof of execution or adherence to tribal rituals is insufficient to displace natural succession. (Paras 61, 63, 64)

(C) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope of re-evaluating evidence - Appellate courts are empowered to re-examine findings of fact if based on inadmissible evidence, inconsistencies, or lack of proper legal proof - Scribe of a document is not a competent witness to prove execution if he lacked personal knowledge of the executant's identity. (Paras 65, 70)

Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed title to property based on an alleged adoption by the original owner. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed it, noting that the adoption was not proven according to tribal customs and that the documentary evidence was unreliable. During the appeal, one respondent died, and their heirs were not brought on record.

Findings of Court:
The appeal was found not to have abated entirely because the estate of the deceased respondent was represented by remaining kin in the same family branch. The court concluded the appellant failed to prove the factum of adoption, citing significant discrepancies in the claimed date of adoption, failure to perform essential tribal ceremonies, and lack of credible evidence to prove the execution of the registered deed.

Issues: Whether the appeal abated upon the death of a respondent, and whether the appellant successfully established the factum of adoption under governing tribal customary law.

Ratio Decidendi: A party seeking to displace natural succession via adoption must strictly prove the performance of essential customary ceremonies and the validity of the adoption deed. Mere registration of a document does not create a presumption of validity for parties governed by tribal customary law, especially when witnesses to the deed are not examined and no date of adoption is specified.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and the scope of abatement before the court. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. appellants' arguments concerning evidentiary weight of the registered adoption deed. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. respondents' arguments on the necessity of proving customary ceremonial adoption. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. factual background: pleadings, issues, and the trial court's initial findings. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
5. first appellate court's reasons for reversing the trial court's judgment. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)
6. legal standard determining whether an appeal abates entirely upon partial abatement. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
7. tribal customary adoption requires proof of ceremonies, not just registration. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73)

39/12.01.2026

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

2. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 05.07.1995 (decree signed on 15.07.1995) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Pakur in Title Appeal No. 22 of 1992/2 of 1994 whereby the learned 1^st appellate court has reversed the judgment and decree dated 31.07.1992 passed by learned Sub- ordinate Judge-II, Pakur in Title Suit No. 49 of 1988. The suit was decreed by the learned trial court and the 1^st appellate court reversed the decree. Consequently, the plaintiff is the appellant before this Court, who has been substituted during the pendency of this case.

3. At the outset, the learned Senior counsel for the respondents has referred to order dated 25.02.2003 pointing out that the appeal has abated as against the proposed legal heirs of deceased respondent no.1 on account of non-compliance of order dated 25.02.2003 and has further referred to order dated 01.05.2003 passed by this Court which has recorded that the question of incompetency of the appeal on account of its abatement in connection with deceased respondent no. 1 will be considered at the time of hearing. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that these orders may be taken care of while deciding the appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in spite of the fact that the respondent no. 1 was not substituted, still the appeal has not abated. He submits that the case be decided on the basis of the substantial questions of law which have been framed vide order dated 23.02.1998 which are as follows:

“(i) whether an appellate court can doubt the genuineness of a valid registered deed fully proved by the scribe himself and found real, valid and genuine, by the trial court?

(ii) Whether the genuineness of valid document can be doubted, when the same has been otherwise fully proved, only because the identifying and attesting witnesses have not been examined?

(iii) Whether mere omission to mention a particular date in the adoption deed regarding the adoption which took some year back would invalid the deed?”

Arguments of the Appellants.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed the trial court’s as well as appellate court’s judgment and has submitted that the plaintiff (original appellant) had filed the suit seeking a decree declaring that the plaintiff is the legally adopted son of Munshi Murmu and a further decree declaring right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit land was prayed. The plaintiff further sought a decree for confirmation of possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. In case the plaintiff was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, a relief was also prayed for recovery of possession. The suit property was relating to Jamabandi No. 10 standing in the name of recorded tenant Jhunka Murmu.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the judgment passed by the learned 1^st appellate court, has submitted that the factum of adopti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 469

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHANDAnubha Rawat Choudhary, JMayno Soren – AppellantVersusBabu Lal Murmu – RespondentS.A. No. 185 of 1995(P)

Cases Referred (7)

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J
Mayno Soren – Appellant
Versus
Babu Lal Murmu – Respondent
S.A. No. 185 of 1995(P)