Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 490

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Sarla Devi, wife of Ghasi Ram Mahto – Appellant
Versus
Rajkishore Mahto, son of Late Mohan Mahito – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 83 of 2012
Decided On : 15-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. H.K. Mahato, Advocate, Mrs. Ahalya Mahato, Advocate, Ms. Jyotsna Mahato, Advocate, Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate, Mr. Shubham Malviya, Advocate, Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Advocate, Mrs. Nanda Kumari, Advocate

A second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be admitted unless the appellant demonstrates a substantial question of law; the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding partition proceedings where procedural due process was followed by the lower courts.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Partition suit - Scope of interference - An appellate court sitting under Section 100 is not to substitute its view for that of the court below unless a substantial question of law is involved - Where lower courts have provided ample opportunity to be heard and the findings regarding the execution of the partition, valuation of land, and notice to parties are based on evidence, there is no scope for interference in the absence of perversity or illegality. (Paras 10, 11, 13)

Facts of the case:
This second appeal challenges the dismissal of an appeal against a final decree in a partition suit originally instituted decades ago. The appellants contested the appointment and report of the surveyor, alleging lack of notice and incorrect property valuation. The litigation has spanned several decades with multiple rounds of appeals, and the current challenge relates to the implementation of the preliminary decree regarding the division of land and the finalization of the partition process.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the lower appellate court correctly verified that the surveyor had issued notices twice to the parties and that the valuation was assessed based on land quality. Furthermore, the appellants failed to raise specific objections regarding possession or alleged inaccuracies in the proceedings during the trial or initial appellate stages. The court held that after the passage of nearly forty-six years, in the absence of any substantial question of law, no grounds for interference exist regarding the confirmed partition decree.

Issues: The central issues were the legality of the partition report regarding service of notice, the accuracy of property valuation for distribution, and whether a substantial question of law arose sufficient to warrant the admission of a second appeal under Section 100.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court cannot admit a second appeal absent a substantial question of law. When lower courts have duly addressed the procedural objections and the decree reflects an equitable division without evidence of manifest perversity, the concurrent findings of fact must be upheld to ensure the finality of litigation.

Result: Second appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. history and procedural background of partition litigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 7 , 8)
2. contentions regarding pleader commissioner procedures and property valuation. (Para 5 , 6 , 9)
3. assessment of lower court findings and procedural compliance. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. dismissal of appeal for lack of substantial law. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. H.K. Mahato, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 12 and 13, Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 to 11 and Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 14, 15 and 16.

2. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2012 (decree signed on 01.06.2012) passed by learned District Judge XII, Ranchi dismissing the Title Appeal No. 140 of 2007 and confirming the final decree dated 02.08.2007 (decree signed on 08.08.2007) passed by the Munsif, Khunti in Partition Suit No. 109 of 1979.

3. The plaintiffs/respondents instituted Title Suit no. 109/79 against the defendants for cancellation of sale deed dated 23.3.1979 executed by plaintiffs in favour of the defendants with respect to the land described in schedule A to the plaint and for partition of half share of the land described in Schedule- B of the plaint and for passing a preliminary decree accordingly and after appointing a survey knowing Pleader Commissioner separate takhta with respect to their half share be prepared and the decree be made final. The said suit was contested by the defendants/ appellants. Defendant No. 3, Lil Mohan Mahto supported the claim of the plaintiffs. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 12.2.1983 giving specific finding that while allotting separate takhta by the Pleader Commissioner maximum convenience of both the parties shall be taken into consideration.

4. Aggrieved with the said judgment and decree the some of the defendants preferred First Appeal no. 54 of 1983 before the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in its Ranchi Bench. The said appeal was dismissed on 20.5.1997. Thereafter L.P.A. no. 302 of 1997 was filed before the High Court which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 17.7.2002.

5. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiffs filed a petition on 23.1.2003 in the above suit for appointment of a Pleader Commissioner and a Pleader Commissioner was appointed for carving out separate takhta with respect to half share of the plaintiffs over the suit land. He also submits that in the preliminary decree there was clear direction that in partitioning of land the Pleader Commissioner shall take into consideration the maximum convenience of both the parties concerned. The Pleader Commissioner submitted his report dated 10.4.2005 in the court on 15.4.2005 which was in absence of the defendants/appellants which was accepted by order dated 29.6.2007 and accordingly final decree was prepared on 2.8.2007.

6. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the report of the pleader commissioner was accepted without hearing the appellants herein and in that view of the matter that law point for admitting the present second appeal. He also submits that correct valuation has not been assessed by the pleader commissioner that is also law point for admitting the present second appeal. On these grounds, he submits that this second appeal may kindly be admitted.

7. Admittedly, Title Suit no. 109/79 was decreed by judgment and decree dated 12.2.1983. The Title Appeal No. 140 of 2007 prerferred by the appellants/defendants has been dismissed by judgment and decree dated 17.05.2012 (decree signed on 01.06.2012) by learned District Judge XII, Ranchi The First Appeal No. 54 of 1983(a) preferred by the defendants/appellant has been dismissed on 20.05.1997 and thereafter L.P.A. no. 302 of 1997 was filed which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 17

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 490

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHISANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.Sarla Devi, wife of Ghasi Ram Mahto – AppellantVersusRajkishore Mahto, son of Late Mohan Mahito – Respondent Second Appeal No. 83 of 2012Decided On : 15-04-2026

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Sarla Devi, wife of Ghasi Ram Mahto – Appellant
Versus
Rajkishore Mahto, son of Late Mohan Mahito – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 83 of 2012
Decided On : 15-04-2026