2025:JHHC:26768 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 438 of 2016 1. Pritam Rana 2. Mahru Rana Both sons of Late Guli Rana 3. Punti Devi 4. Girwa Devi Both D/o Late Guli Rana All residents of village – Galwati, P.S. & P.O. Galwati, Dhanwar, District Giridih … … Plaintiffs/Respondents/Appellants -Versus- 1. Baldeo Rana, S/o Late Huro Rana 2. Gaya Rana 3. Babulal Rana 4. Nageshwar Rana All sons of Late Jamuna Rana 5. Most. Gholwa Devi, W/o Late Jagdish Rana All R/o Village Galwati, P.S. Dhanwar, P.O. Galwati, District Giridih … … Defendants/Appellants/Respondents 6. Nunman Rana (Dead & Substituted V/o dt. 23.03.2023) 6(a) Gandauri Rana, S/o Late Nunman Rana, R/o Vill. Maghokhurd, P.O. Galwati, P.S. Dhanwar, Dist. Giridih 6(b) Kaushalya Devi, W/o Shri Prakash Vishwakarma, D/o Late Nunman Rana, R/o Village Haithgada, PO barkangando via Barhi, PS Barhi, District Hazaribagh 7. Kabileshwari Devi, D/o Huro Rana, R/o village Sibudih, P.O. & P.S. Sibudih, District Giridih 8. Balia Devi, W/o Babulal Rana, R/o village Tulsidih, P.O. & P.S. Tulsidih, District Giridih 9. Sudama Devi, W/o Dularchand Maitri, R/o village Khasgo, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh 10. Parmila Devi, D/o Jamuna Rana, R/o village + P.O. & P.S. Patardih, Dist. Koderma … … Defendants/Appellants/Respondents 11. Nandalal Rana 12. Uttim Rana @ Gangadhar Rana 2025:JHHC:26768 2 Both S/o Late Haro Rana, R/o village Galwati, P.S. Galwati, P.O. Galwati, Dhanwar, Dist. Giridih 13. Kishore Rana, S/o Sukhdeo Rana 14. Shankar Rana, S/o Sukhdeo Rana R/o Chapuadih, P.S. Markacho, District Koderma, PO Markacho 15. Randhiya Devi, W/o Kokil Rana and D/o Jago Rana (Deceased) Vill- Galwati, P.S.+P.O. Galwati, Dhanwar, Dist. Giridih 16. Kapoor Mian, S/o Bhawani Mian 17. Salamat Mian 18. Sahadat Mian No. 17 and 18 both sons of Late Mohan Mian No. 16, 17 and 18 all R/o Vill- Galwati, P.S.+P.O. Galwati, Dhanwar, Dist. Giridih 19. Most. Jamila, W/o Late Kabir Mian 20. Sadique Mian 21. Sahadat Mian 22. Akhtar Mian 23. Maksud Mian 24. Jabir Mian 25. Harmat Mian No. 20 to 25 all sons of Late Kabir Mian 26. Amna Khatoon, D/o Late Kabir Mian No. 19 to 26 all resident of vill- Galwati, P.S.+P.O. Galwati, Dhanwar, Dist. Giridih 27. Most. Jahuran, W/o Late Sakur Mian, R/o Maghokhurd, PO-Galwati, PS-Dhanwar, Dist. Giridih 28. Mohammad Islam 29. Mohammad Haidar Ali 30. Mohammad Tabaraque Ali 31. Mohammad Ayub Ali No. 28 to 31 all sons of Late Sakur Mian 32. Sahnaj Khatoon, D/o Late Sakur Mian and W/o Noor Mohammad Ansari No. 28 to 32 all residents of Magokhurd, PO-Galwati, PS-Dhanwar, Dist. Giridih 33. Fidari Mian, S/o Late Abdul Mian 34. Jamiruddin 35. Mt. Sobri 34 and 35 both sons and daughter of Amir Mian deceased 36. Sutridue Mian, S/o Late Amir Mian Deceased 2025:JHHC:26768 3 37. Ashin Mian, S/o Amir Mian of Bhen Dharini 38. Ibrahim Mian 39. Sudin Mian 40. Israil Mian 38, 39 and 40 all sons of Late Rojan Mian All R/o Mogahokhurd, PO-Galwati, PS-Dhanwar, Dist. Giridih 41. Jakir Mian 42. Rafique Mian R/o Vill-Kuda, P.S. Rajdhanwar, P.O. Rajdhanwar, Dist. Giridih 43. Julekha Khatoon, W/o Idrish Mian, R/o vill-Kanjosurja, PO- Kadambari, PS Giridih (M), Dist. Giridih 44. Saira Khatoon, W/o Abu Ansari, R/o Vill-Barvavad via Polanjia, PO- Polanjia, P.S. Giridih, Dist. Giridih 45. Sabiran Khatoon, W/o Basarat Ali, R/o Vill- Chango Singha via Domchanch Bazar, PO-Domchach, PS Giridih, Dist. Giridih 125418 46. Mangar Mian, S/o Ilahi Mian 47. Keshari Rabidas 48. Hari Ravidas of Bhen Dharini 49. Bapi Ravidas 50. Lachho Ravidas All S/o Late Somar Chamar, R/o Magokhurd, PO-Galwati, PS- Dhanwar, Dist. Giridih 51. Chhapti Chamain, Daughter of Late Somar Chamar Mahara and W/o Parmeshwar, R/o Magokhurd, PO-Galwati, PS-Dhanwar, Dist.-Giridih 52. Binod Yadav, S/o Late Narayan Mahto, Vill-Khetka Bhudarni, PO- Galwati, PS-Dhanwar, Dist.-Giridih 53. Rahman Mian, S/o Not known of Galwati, R/o Not stated in the decree. 54. Jhari Rana, S/o Late Chatu Rana of Vill-Markacho, PO-Markacho, PS Markacho, Dist. Hazaribagh 55. Bhikhari Rana 56. Surendra Rana 57. Upendra Rana 58. Prabhu Rana All sons of Late Basudeo Rana of Villaage- Maracho, PO-Markacho, PS Markacho, Dist. Hazaribagh (Now Koderma) 59. Kailash Vishwakarma 60. Lilo Vishwakarma Both S/o Aklu Rana, Vill-Haralawatari, Post-Remba, PS-Remba, Dist. Giridih 2025:JHHC:26768 4 61. Nunu Koiry (deleted and substituted vide order dated 23.03.2023) 61(a) Kailash Rana, S/o Late Nand Kishor Rana, R/o Village Jhanjh, PO Murna, PS Rajdhanwar, District Giridih 61(b) Kunti Devi, W/o Huro Rana, R/o Village + PO-Kripalpur, PS Dhanwar, District Giridih 61(c)Draupadi Devi, W/o Late Chhotal Rana, R/o Village-Algadesi, PO Kubti, via Domchanch Bazar, PS Dhanwar, District Giridih 61(d) Sumitra Devi, W/o Arjun Vishwakarma, R/o Village – Nawadih (Masnodih), P.O. & P.S. Dhanwar, District Giridih 61(e)Piyasi Devi, W/o Hemlal Rana, R/o Village + PO – Duma, PS. Jamua, District Giridih 61(f)Tulsi Vishwakarma, S/o Kailash Vishwakarma, R/o Village Jhanjh, PO Murna via Rajdhanwar, PS Dhanwar, District Giridih 61(g)Nakul Rana, son of Late Saraswati Devi 61(h)Gopi Rana, son of Late Saraswati Devi 61(i) Chotan Rana, son of Late Saraswati Devi No. I to III all Residents of village Sudan, P.O. & P.S. Barkattha, District Koderma, Jharkhand 61(j) Kalawati Devi, wife of Sakaldeo Rana, Resident of Village- Loriyadih, P.O. & P.S. Jaynagar, District Hazaribagh 62. Shibu Singh 63. Debi Singh 64. Dharni Singh All sons of Lacho Singh of Purna Nagar, PO-Kubri, PS-Kubri, Dist. Giridih … … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. R. N. Sahay, Sr. Advocate Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate For the Respondents : --- 13/28th August 2025 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 25.05.2016 (decree signed on 10.06.2016) passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Giridih in Title Appeal No. 26/2012 reversing the judgment dated 23.02.2012 (decree signed on 03.03.2012) 2025:JHHC:26768 5 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-III, Giridih in Partition Suit No. 44/96. The suit was decreed on contest and the plaintiffs were declared to be share-holder to the extent of 1/4th of the suit property. 3. The learned 1st appellate court has reversed the judgment and decree by holding that Bishun Rana was not the ancestor of the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 to 5 and Kishun Rana, Guda Rana and Moti Rana were not own brothers and disbelieved the story of kartaship of Ghanshyam Rana. The learned 1st appellate court held that the disputed lands were acquired by the ancestors of both the parties i.e. the plaintiffs and the contested defendant nos. 1 to 5 jointly as tenant-in-common and the lands in question were distributed amongst the share-holders and there was no unity of title and unity of possession amongst the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 1 to 5 with respect to the suit lands. Arguments of the appellants 4. The learned senior counsel for the appellants, while referring to the impugned judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court, has submitted that the learned 1st appellate court did not frame any point for determination and accordingly the provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC has not been followed while reversing the decree. 5. The learned senior counsel has relied to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 4 SCC 240 (H. Siddiqi (dead) by Lrs. Vs. A. Ramalingam) paragraph 21. He has submitted that it has been held that it is mandatory for the appellate court to independently assess the evidence of the parties and consider the relevant points which arise for adjudication and the bearing of the evidence on those points. It has been further held that being the final court of fact, the 1st appellate court must not record mere general expression of concurrence with the trial court judgment rather it must give reasons for its decision on each point independently to that of the trial court. 2025:JHHC:26768 6 Findings of this Court 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that the plaintiffs had filed the suit for a preliminary decree of 1/4th share in the suit land and also prayed that after appointment of a Survey Knowing Commissioner, they be put in khas possession of the suit property. 7. It was the specific case of the plaintiffs that Bhushan Rana, Kisun Rana and Gudda Rana had acquired three raiyati jama of land in village Galwanti; Bhushan Rana died leaving behind two sons, namely, Kisun Rana and Gudda Rana; Kisun Rana also died before survey leaving behind two sons, namely, Ghanshyam Rana and Lato Rana; Lato Rana also died before survey in jointness with his brothers and sons of Gudda Rana. Lato Rana died leaving behind his two sons Kehar Rana and Gulli Rana. Gudda Rana died before survey in jointness with sons of Kisun Rana and he died leaving behind his two sons Rewa Rana and Chando Rana, who jointly possessed the land of village Galwanti and Maghokhurd. 8. It was the further case of the plaintiffs that the joint family of the descendants of Bishun Rana disrupted in the year 1948 and since then, they have been coming in separate possession over the land of the three villages. The plaintiffs claim 4 annas share in the suit land. 9. The defendant nos. 1 to 5 contested the suit and filed their written statement and defendant nos. 6 to 11, 13, 15 to 17 (A) to 17 (C), 18 to 29 and 36 and defendant nos. 30(a/1) to 30 (a/2) have filed their written statement on admission of the claim of the plaintiffs in toto. Rest of the defendants neither appeared nor filed their written statement and the suit proceeded ex-parte against them. 10. So far as the contesting defendant nos. 1 to 5 are concerned, they took a specific stand that there is no community of interest or unity of title and possession over the suit land between the parties. It was also stated 2025:JHHC:26768 7 that the plaintiffs have neither title nor possession and they did not belong to the family of recorded raiyat of khata no. 3, 7 and 43. It was challenged that the Bishun Rana was not the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 1 to 5 and they were also not the member of Joint Undivided Hindu Family and they were never in joint possession of the lands. 11. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial court: - I. Is there any cause of action for the suit? II. Is the suit barred under Order IX Rule 9 and Order 7 Rule 2 and Section 11 of the C.P.C.? III. Is the suit maintainable? IV. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of parties? V. Was Bishun Rana common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendants no. 1 to 5? VI. Are the properties in suit joint acquiescence of the parties? VII. Were Kishun Rana, Guda Rana and Moti Rana own brothers? VIII. Is the story of kartaship of Ghanshyam Rana true and correct? IX. Is there unity of title and community of possession between the parties? X. Have the plaintiffs right to seek partition in the context? XI. To what any other relief or reliefs is the plaintiffs entitled for? 12. The learned trial court while deciding issue nos. 5, 7 and 8 held that the plaintiffs were able to prove that the plaintiffs and the principal defendant nos. 1 to 5 were from the same family headed by Bishun Rana and in absence of any rebuttal by defendants, the principle of preponderance will work in favour of the plaintiffs and with all probabilities, it will be presumed that the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 1 to 5 are the descendants of Bishun Rana. The learned trial court went on to hold that the plaintiffs succeeded to prove that Ghanshayam was the karta of the family. 2025:JHHC:26768 8 13. The findings with regard to issue nos. 5, 7 and 8 passed by the learned trial court are quoted as under: - “…………………………………………………………………………. Thus in my opinion, the plaintiffs has become able to prove that the plaintiff and Principal defendant no. 1 to 5 are from the same family which was headed by Bisun Rana and in absence of any rebuttal by defendants, the principle of preponderance will works in favour of plaintiffs with all probability to presume that the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1 to 5 are the descendants of Bisun Rana. On the basis of above, it is self-prove that Kisun Rana and Guda Rana were real and own brothers and from perusal of evidence on record, it appears that Bisun Rana, Kisun Rana, Guda Rana the sons of Bisun Rana, Lato Rana, S/o Kisun Rana were died before survey hence it would be common presumption that the leaving elder family member would be karta of the family, who was Ghanshyam, S/o Kisun Rana. On perusal of record, it also transpires that though the defendants has denied from this fact in their written statement but they did not produced any evidence to rebuttal the evidence produced by plaintiff. Hence, in my opinion the plaintiffs succeeded to prove that the Ghanshyam was the karta of the family. Thus, I find and hold that these issues are hereby decided in favour of plaintiffs against defendants.” 14. The learned trial court thereafter considered issue nos. 6 and 9 and held that there was unity of title and unity of possession with respect to the suit property. While considering issue no. 4, the learned trial court held that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary party and observed that the transferees are not the necessary party, if their vendor are party in the suit. 15. So far as the learned 1st appellate court is concerned, though separately no point of determination was framed, but the learned 1st appellate court independently considered each of the issues which were framed by the learned trial court in the light of the materials placed on record . 2025:JHHC:26768 9 16. The learned 1st appellate court considered issue nos. 5, 7 and 8 and after referring to the materials on record held that the plaintiffs could not prove that Bishun Rana was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 1 to 5 and that the learned trial court wrongly held that the Kishun Rana and Guda Rana were real brothers. The learned 1st appellate court also held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that Moti Rana was related to Kishun Rana and Guda Rana. The learned court thereafter observed that since it was proved that Kishun Rana and Gudda Rana were not related by blood to each, the Court held that Bishun Rana was not the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 to 5 and Kishun Rana, Guda Rana and Moti Rana were not the real brothers as well and therefore Ghanshyam Rana was not the karta of the Joint Undivided Hindu Family. Accordingly, issue nos. 5, 7 and 8 were decided against the plaintiffs. 17. Thereafter, the learned 1st appellate court took up issue nos. 6, 9 and 10 and referred to the entries made in record of rights and also to the various sale deeds. The learned 1st appellate court also took into consideration the provision of Section 89(3) of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act and observed that as per the said provision, every entry in the record of rights, so published, shall be evidence of the matter referred to in such entry and shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved, by evidence, to be incorrect and held that the ancestor of the plaintiffs and the ancestor of the defendants were tenants-in-common and the land was already distributed amongst the share-holders and there was no unity of title or unity of possession amongst the plaintiffs and defendants no. 1 to 5 with respect to the suit property and thus the plaintiffs were not entitled to partition. The reference to provision of Section 89(3) of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act is apparently a typographical mistake and the correct provision is section 84(3) which is quoted as under: - “84 Presumption as to final publication and correctness of the record of rights – 2025:JHHC:26768 10 (1)…….. (2)……… (3) Every entry in a record of rights, so published, shall be evidence of the matter referred to in such entry and shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved, by evidence, to be incorrect.” 18. Thus, the learned 1st appellate court observed that there was no ancestral joint family nucleus and the suit property was not the coparcenary property and held that the disputed land was acquired by the ancestors of both the parties like the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 1 to 5 jointly as tenants-in-common, however, the lands-in-question were distributed among the shareholders and there is no unity of title and unity of possession amongst the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 to 5 for the suit land and consequently held that the plaintiffs had no right to seek partition. 19. This Court finds that the learned trial court, while coming to a finding that Bisun Rana was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendant no. 1 to 5, did not discuss the evidence of the defendants except that though the defendants had stated that they cannot say about descendants of Kisun Rana and Gudda Rana but had not denied that defendant no. 1 to 5 were not the descendants of Kisun Rana and Gudu Rana. The learned trial court held that the plaintiffs have been able to prove their case in absence of any rebuttal from the defendant and applying the principles of preponderance of probability held that Bisun Rana was the common ancestor. On the other hand, the learned 1st appellate court elaborately considered the evidences of both plaintiffs and defendants no. 1 to 5 and after due discussion held that the plaintiffs could not prove that Bishun Rana was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 1 to 5 and that the learned trial court wrongly held that the Kishun Rana and Guda Rana were real brothers. The learned 1st appellate court also held on the 2025:JHHC:26768 11 basis of materials including the registered sale deeds executed between the parties /family members and the transactions between the parties to conclude that it was clear that partition of the suit properties had already taken place between the plaintiffs and the contesting defendant no. 1 to 5. Ultimately, the learned 1st appellate court dismissed the partition suit by holding that there was no unity of title and possession between the plaintiffs and the defendant no. 1 to 5 and suit was dismissed after setting aside the trial court’s judgement. 20. This Court finds that the learned 1st appellate court has considered all the issues as was raised and decided before the learned trial court and considered all the evidences, both oral and documentary to come to findings while allowing the appeal. 21. No perversity as such in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the learned 1st appellate court or with regards to appreciation of law as applicable to the case has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants. 22. This Court is of the considered view that the learned 1st appellate court has done the needful and the appreciation of materials on record as done by the learned 1st appellate court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity calling for framing of any substantial question of law. Otherwise also, no substantial question of law is involved in this case. 23. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed. 24. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. 25. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 28.08.2025 Mukul/-