The central legal issue is whether, under Mitakshara law for a Hindu dying before 1956, a widow's remarriage exhausts her interest in her husband's property, thereby devolving the estate to the deceased's daughters as natural heirs or to his agnates, and addressing the daughters' capacity to transfer such property.

23/28.01.2026

1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 16.06.2008 (decree signed on 24.06.2008) passed by learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court No.III, Hazaribag in Title Appeal No.11 of 2004 affirming the judgment dated 20.02.2004 (decree signed on 05.03.2004) in Title Suit No. 29 of 1994 passed by learned Sub-Judge-V, Hazaribag.

Case of the plaintiffs:-

2. The suit was initially filed by Pato Devi, Wife of Kashi Mahto and three sons of Kashi Mahto namely Bhola Mahto, Kushal Mahto and Ledu Mahto and three daughters of Kashi Mahto namely Jhumni Devi, Riba Devi and Purni Devi for a preliminary decree of 7/9th share in schedule-A and schedule-B property and also for a declaration that the sale deed executed by Bilasho and Bauni Devi, both daughters of Radha Mahto (son of Dukhi Mahto) is collusive, null and void and no title and possession passes by virtue of the said sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 namely Chola Ram Mahto (son of Kashi Mahto through his 2nd wife Sohagi Devi). Defendant no. 2 was Gaura Devi (daughter of Kashi Mahto through his 2nd wife Sohagi Devi). Pato Devi died during the pendency of the suit and Bauni Devi (daughter of Radha Mahto and his wife Sohagi Devi) was later on made defendant no. 3 in the suit and the suit was amended and the plaintiffs now claimed 6/8th share in schedule A and B of the plaint. It was the case of the plaintiff that Sohagi Devi married twice, 1st marriage was with Radha Mahto and after his death married cousin brother of Radha Mahto, namely, Kashi Mahto. Thus, Sohagi Devi has children from Radha Mahto and also from Kashi Mahto. The plaintiffs were the children theoruh the 1st wife of Kashi Mahto. It is not in dispute that Bilaso Devi , full sister of Bauni Devi and co-vendor of the impugned sale deed had expired.

3. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the property recorded in the name of Amrit Mahto, who had two sons Dukhi Mahto and Kailu Mahto and at the time of last survey operation Dukhi Mahto had expired, so his landed property was recorded in the name of Radha Mahto, his son. It was their case that land under Khata No. 15 was recorded in the name of Kailu Mahto; the land under Khata No. 57 was recorded in the name of Radha Mahto; and the land under Khata No. 56 was recorded jointly in the name of Radha Mahto, S/o Dukhi Mahto and Kailu Mahto, S/o Amrit Mahto. The property in Khata no. 15,56, and 57 were included in schedule A . Further it was the case of the plaintiffs that the schedule B property were the purchased properties of Kashi Mahto and his four sons ( three sons through his 1st wife and one son from his 2nd wife Sohagi Devi , who was made defendant no.1).

4. It is further case of the plaintiffs that Dukhi Mahto son of Amrit Mahto died leaving behind his only son Radha Mahto and his wife Dukhni Devi. The wife of Radha Mahto was Sohagi Devi and he had two minor daughters namely Bilasho devi and Bauni devi.

5. As per the case of the plaintiff, Radha Mahto died sometimes in the year 1936 in the jointness. Both the daughters of Radha Matho were living under the care and guardianship of their mother Sohagi Devi and grand mother Dukhni Devi. However, Sohagi Devi , the wife of Radha Mahto, remarried with her brother-in-law Kashi Mahto, S/o Kailu Mahto s/o Amrit Mahto. At the time of second marriage Kashi Mahto came in exclusive possession and became the sole owner of all the Khata No. 15, 57 and 56 [schedule A properties] and Kashi Mahto, after marriage with Sohagi Devi, had a son namely Chola Mahto (defendant No.1) and a daughter Gaura (defendant No.2). It was their further case that Sohagi Devi died in the year 1950 and Kashi Mahto died in th