2025:JHHC:26669 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S. A. No. 242 of 2023 Bijay Kachhap, aged about 57 years, Son of Late Ignesh Kachhap & Late Jagni Kachhap, Resident of Bhaliakudhar, Ward No.1, Chakradharpur, Municipality, P.O. & P.S. Chakradharpur, District- West Singhbhum … … Defendant/Appellant/Appellant Versus 1. Lakho Oraon, Son of Late Wasu Oraon & Late Jagni Kachhap (Schedule Tribe), R/o Bhaliakudhar, Ward No.1, Chakradharpur, Municipality, P.O.+P.S.- Chakradharpur, District-West Singhbhum ... ... Plaintiff No.1/Respondent/Respondent 2. Smt. Pinky Oraon, W/o Late Kuldeep Oraon 3. Sawan Oraon, S/o Late Kuldeep Oraon, 4. Preeti Kumari, D/o Late Kuldeep Oraon 2 to 4 are residents of Indira Colony, Toklo Road, P.O.+P.S.- Chakradharpur, District West Singhbhum, PIN 833102 ... ... Substituted heirs of Plaintiff No.2/Respondents/Respondents 5. Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.: Chaibasa, District- West Singhbhum … … Defendant No.2/Respondent No.3/Respondent --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the Respondents : None --- 21/02.09.2025 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 28.07.2023 (decree signed on 11.08.2023) passed by the learned District Judge-II, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2020 affirming the judgment dated 10.07.2018 (decree signed on 23.07.2018) in Original (Partition) Suit No. 22 of 2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Chaibasa. 3. The suit was decreed by the learned trial court and the judgment of the learned trial court was affirmed by the learned 1st appellate court. Consequently, the defendant is appellant before this Court. 2025:JHHC:26669 2 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiffs and the defendants were children of one Jagni Kachhap. However, the plaintiffs were through her 1st husband and the contesting defendant was through her 2nd husband. The learned counsel submits that since the suit property stood in the name of Jagni Kachhap, the plaintiffs claimed partition. 5. He submits that the specific case of the defendants was that Jagni Kachhap left the matrimonial house of her 1st husband, leaving her children from 1st marriage under the care and guardianship of her in-laws and she married Ignesh Kachhap, who was having a Railway Service and it was asserted that the plaintiffs never resided with their mother during her life time. It was also asserted that Jagni Kachhap was a simple house wife having no source of income. The acquisition of suit property was purchased in the name of Jagni Kachhap as wife of Ignesh Kachhap and the property was purchased by Ignesh Kachhap out of his own source of income. 6. The learned counsel has submitted that even the property stood in the name of Jagni Kachhap, but the same was purchased by Ignesh Kachhap in her name, who was the 2nd husband and consequently, the plaintiffs being the children through 1st husband had no right to seek partition with respect to the suit property. He submits that this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by both the courts and accordingly, a substantial question of law be framed and this appeal be decided by this Court. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the plaintiffs were children through the 1st husband of Jagni Kachhap and defendant No.1 was the through the 2nd husband of Jagni Kachhap and plaintiffs had filed suit seeking partition of property which stood in the name of Jagni Kachhap. The defendant No.1 contested the suit on the ground that the property was purchased by 2nd husband in the name of Jagni Kachhap and therefore, the suit property could not be partitioned between the plaintiffs and 2025:JHHC:26669 3 the defendant No.1. The learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration. “I. Is the suit maintainable in its present form and for the reliefs claimed? II. Is the suit barred by law of limitation? III. Is the suit bad for non-joinder and Mis-joinder of parties? IV. Is the late Jagni Kachhap purchased the suit property out of her own fund? V. Is the plaintiffs have got right, title and interest to get partition in the suit property? VI. Is the plaintiffs got valid cause of action to use? VII. Whether, the plaintiffs are entitled to relief claimed or any other reliefs? ” 8. The core issue involved in this case is issue No. IV as to whether Jagni Kachhap purchased the suit property out of her own fund. 9. The learned trial court has considered all the materials on record while deciding issue No. IV and has come to a finding that the suit property was purchased by Jagni Kachhap from her own fund and thus decided issue No. IV in favour of the plaintiffs and ultimately directed for partition of the suit property. 10. So far as learned 1st appellate court is concerned, the sole point framed was as under:- “Whether the trial court was erred in decreeing the suit of plaintiffs?” 11. The learned 1st appellate court has given the finding that learned trial court has rightly decided this issue in favour of plaintiffs by holding that the suit land was purchased by Jagni Kachhap and as such, it was her self-acquired property. The finding was arrived after considering the materials on record. 12. This Court finds that both the learned courts have scrutinized the materials on record to come to a finding that Jagni Kachhap had purchased the property from her own fund. No perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. Once the property was held to be a 2025:JHHC:26669 4 self-acquired property of Jagni Kachhap, the learned courts have not committed any error in partitioning the same between the plaintiffs and the defendant no.1. 13. This Court finds no illegality in the aforesaid findings of the learned 1st appellate court with respect to the point of determination and upholding the judgment of the learned trial court and this Court is of the considered view that no question of law much less and any substantial question of law is involved in this case. 14. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in this 2nd appeal which is hereby dismissed. 15. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 16. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned court through “Fax/e-mail”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Rakesh/-