IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 478 of 2018

1. Baldeo Mahali, aged about 60 years, son of Late Ganesh Mahali 2. Kitabu Mahali, aged about 35 years, son of Late Radhaya mahali 3. Jhathu Mahali, aged about 32 years, son of late Radhaya Mahali … … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants Versus

1. Dinu Mahali, son of Late Hari Mahli

2. Balmukund Mahli, son of Late Hari Mahli 3. Sanicharwa Mahli, son of late Hari Mahli

4. Ram Jatan Mahli, son of Late Panchu Mahli All resident of village Messal, P.O. & P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi

5. Sukra Oraon, son of late Goyendra Oraon, resident of village Sursa, P.O. Murma, P.s. Madar, District Ranchi

6. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District-

Ranchi … … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents ---

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

For the Appellants : Ms. Sarweshwari Kumari, Advocate For the Respondents :

---

16/13th January 2026

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 21.08.2018 (decree signed on 31.08.2018) passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2017 affirming the judgment dated 06.09.2017 (decree signed on 18.09.2017) passed by the learned Additional Munsif XIII, Ranchi in Partition Suit No. 161 of 2009. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the suit was filed for partition of the suit property, but the learned trial court dismissed the suit and the learned 1^st appellate court also dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned courts have not appreciated the materials on record properly and therefore, the judgments passed by the learned courts are perverse. She submits that a substantial question of law be framed and the appeal be decided.

5. The suit was filed for the following reliefs: -

(A) That a preliminary decree be passed partitioning the suit property giving half share to the plaintiffs and their share be carved out by appointment of survey knowing advocate and after passing the final decree plaintiffs be put in possession of their share by process of Court.

(B) That it be declared that the permission granted in Misc. Case No. 611 R8II of 2007-08 dated 04.01.2008 by the Rent Suit Deputy Collector, Ranchi be declared ab-initio void, ineffective, imperative and fraudulent.

(C) That it be declared that the sale deed bearing no. 750 dated 17th January 2008 executed by Sukra Mahali defendant no. 1 to defendant no. 6 Sukra Oraon be declared ab-initio fraudulent, void, illegal, inoperative, imperative and ineffective and not binding on the plaintiffs and defendant no.

2 to 5.

(D) All cost of the suit.

(E) Any other relief or reliefs which the plaintiffs may be entitled may be given to them.”

6. The case of the plaintiffs was that land of Khata nos. 74 and 75 of Village Sursa, P.S.-102, District Ranchi was recorded in the name of ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 5. Khata no. 74 was recorded in the name of Bigu, Ganesh, Chamru, Son of Sukra Mahali and Charwa, Budhwa and Tepia Mahali, Son of Radheya Mahali, whereas Khata no. 75 was recorded in the name of Bigu, Ganesh and Chamru Mahali, Son of Sukra Mahali in R.S. record of rights. The land of Khata nos. 74 and 75 was in joint possession of the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 1 to 5 and the same was not divided between the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 1 to 5, but for convenience they were cultivating the suit property separately.

7. It was their further case that Sukra Mahali, Son of Chamru Mahali, who was defendant no. 1, without any consent and approval of the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 2 to 5, sold 30 decimals of land of plot no. 553 Khata no. 75 by way of absolute sale vide deed no. 750 dated 17.01.2008 to defendant no. 6, Sukra Oraon and the permission of the concerned authority for sale has been obtained fraudulently vide Cas