Advocates:
['ARSHAD HUSSAIN', 'ATANU BANERJEE', '', 'MD ZAID AHMAD']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

S.A. No. 184 of 2006

1. Kisto Sahu

2. Gita Devi

3. Anita Devi

....

…. Appellants

Versus

1. Fulmani Devi

2. Sitamuni Devi

3. Saraswati Devi

4. Satpati Devi

....

.... Respondents

------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Appellants

: Mr. Arshad Hussain, Advocate

For the Respondents

: Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate

C.A.V. ON 07.02.2022

PRONOUNCED ON 23 /02/2022

1. The appellants are the plaintiffs who have preferred the instant appeal

against the judgment of reversal passed by the Additional District

Judge, Simdega in Title Appeal No. 27 of 1998 whereby and

whereunder, the learned appellate Court has reversed and set aside the

judgment and decree passed in Partition Suit No. 30 of 1991.

2. Plaintiffs brought the suit for 1/2th share in the joint family property

described in the Schedule by partition.

3. As per the case of the plaintiff the suit land fully detailed in Schedule A

was recorded in the name of Banmali Sahu and was succeeded by his

sons Shivcharan Sahu and Brajmohan Sahu. The property was not

partitioned by metes and bounds though for convenience they lived

separately. Shivcharan Sahu died on 25.08.1978 leaving his daughter

Parwati Devi who died in the year 1990 leaving behind her husband

Kristo Sahu Plaintiff no.1 and two daughters Anita Devi and Gita Devi

as her heir and successor.

4. Plaintiff No. 1, Kristo Sahu is the husband and plaintiff No. 2, Gita

Devi is the daughter of deceased Parwati Devi. It is further case of the

plaintiffs that Shivcharan Sahu had sold some land under his possession

described in Schedule-B to his daughter Parwati Devi on 29.06.1975

and Parwati Devi and Kristo Sahu also sold some land out of it to

different persons as shown in Schedule-C of the plaint. The suit land

was joint property of both the parties and they are entitled to half share

each. When the demand for partition was not heeded the present suit

was filed.

2

5. The case of defendant No. 1 Brajmohan Sahu is that the plaintiff is not

in possession of the suit land and partition suit has been filed under the

garb of Title Suit. It is the case of the defendant that Shivcharan Sahu

died in the year 1952, hence plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 cannot

claim any right, title and possession over the suit land. It has been

disputed that Shivcharan Sahu and Brajmohan Sahu were full brothers

and had not partitioned the suit land. It has been admitted that Parwati

Devi died in the year 1989 but contended that her property was not

inherited by her two daughters.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following main issues

were framed:

ii) Whether the suit lands are ancestral lands of plaintiffs and

defendants?

iv) Whether there has been any partition of the suit lands between

plaintiffs and defendants?

viii) When did Shivcharan Sahu die, in the year 1978 or in the year

1952?

7. The learned Trial Court answered all these issued in favour of the

plaintiffs and decreed the suit on the following grounds:

Firstly, it has been admitted by the defendants that Banmali Sahu was a

recorded tenant of the suit land and he had two sons namely Brajmohan

Sahu and Shivcharan Sahu (Exhibit-3 series) are the certified copy of

Khatiyan which shows that the land under Khata Nos. 156, 226, 225

were recorded in the name of Banmali Sahu which has been

corroborated by oral evidence.

Secondly, in the written statement it has been admitted that there has

not been any partition between both the parties.

Thirdly, on issue No. 8 regarding the question of death of Shivcharan

Sahu in the year 1978 or in the year 1952, the documentary and oral

evidence has supported the case of the plaintiff that Shivcharan Sahu

died in the year 1978. It has been deposed by the plaintiffs that his

father-in-law Shivcharan Sahu on 29.06.1975 had sold t