2025:JHHC:29732 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 223 of 2013 Mahesh Prasad Saw, S/o Srinath Saw, Resident of Village: Seraidhela, P.O. + P.S. Seraidhela, Distt: - Dhanbad, State: - Jharkhand … … Defendant/Appellant/Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Parni Mahatain, wife of Lobin Mandal, Resident of Village: - Nepura, Tola Bahadurpur, Post Office & Police Station: - Tundi, District : - Dhanbad 2. Smt. Sohagi Mahatain, wife of Srinath Shaw @ Srinath Mahato, resident of village: - Seraidhela, Post Office and Police Station: - Seraidhela, District – Dhanbad … … Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate --- 22/23.09.2025 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgement and decree dated 27.06.2013 passed in Title Appeal No.65 of 2004 whereby the learned 1st appellate court has dismissed the appeal. The trial court judgment was passed in Title Suit No.46 of 1990 by learned Sub- ordinate Judge IV Dhanbad on 22.03.2004. The suit was decreed. 3. The defendant is the appellant before this Court. 4. The suit was filed seeking a declaration that the gift deed no.3480 dated 05.04.1990 is void with respect to the Schedule B property. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the gift deed has been held valid by the learned trial court only to the extent of 1/3rd share of which was attributable to the widow; and 2/3rd share was held to be that of the two daughters. He has further submitted that the parties are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu law and referred to Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to submit that the entire property of the late husband would have devolved exclusively to the widow, and therefore, the registered deed of gift executed by the widow with respect to the entire property was valid in the eyes of law. He submits that the learned courts have erred in holding that the gift 2025:JHHC:29732 2 deed was valid only to the extent of 1/3rd the property and therefore a substantial question of law be framed by this Court. 6. The learned counsel has referred to the judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1332 of 2008 (Gopalakrishna (D) By Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Narayanagowda (dead) by Lrs. & Ors.) to submit that the widow has absolute power with respect to the suit property. He has referred to paragraph 21 of the said judgment which in turn referred to the earlier judgement reported in (1975) 4 SCC 458 (Gogula Gurumurthy & Ors. Vs. Kurimeti Ayyappa). 7. The learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the judgment, has referred to Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to submit that the widow had the exclusive right over the property during her lifetime after the death of her husband and no right over the property was acquired by his two daughters. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that as per the case of the plaintiff, the land in Schedule B belonged to and was in possession of Rupan Mahto, the father of the plaintiff, who died leaving behind his wife Gangia Mahtain and two daughters namely Sohagi Mahtain and Purni Mahtain (the plaintiff). It was the specific case of the plaintiff that all three were the Class I legal heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and jointly inherited the property left by Rupan Mahto. The property was enjoyed jointly, and none of them held a distinct or separate share in any specific portion of the land. 9. It was also the case of the plaintiff that Sohagi Mahtain (one daughter) was residing in the house of Gangia Mahtain, as the husband of Sohagi Mahtain was working in Dhanbad. It was further case that due to close contact of Sohagi Mahtain with her mother, she got much influenced and command over Gangia Mahtain and taking advantage of this, Sohagi Mahtain and her husband instigated Gangia Mahtain to execute a registered deed of gift in respect of the suit land and ultimately Gangia Mahtain executed the registered deed of gift in respect of the entire land claiming herself that Rupan Mahto, had died 2025:JHHC:29732 3 leaving behind Gangia Mahtain as only legal heir and successor and executed the registered deed of gift bearing no.3480 dated 05.04.1990 which was alleged to be void ab initio. 10. The defendant contested the suit. However, it was admitted that Rupan Mahto, was in exclusive possession of the suit land, who died leaving behind Gangia Mahtain and his two daughters Sohagi Mahtain and Purni Mahtain (the plaintiff), but the joint possession of the property was denied. It was asserted that the defendant no.1 was in exclusive possession of the same since 1972 and the plaintiff had no concern with the suit property. A plea of adverse possession was also raised by the defendant no.1 with respect to the remaining share and becoming absolute owner of the property ousting the other co-owners. It was contended that the defendant no.1 had voluntarily and with a free will executed the registered deed of gift in favour of defendant no.2 out of love and affection. However, it was admitted that defendant no.1 was having 1/3rd share to the said land and the plaintiff could assert her right only through a partition suit in which defendant no.1 could take a plea of defence of ousting the plaintiff from her share. 11. The learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration: I. Is the suit as framed maintainable? II. Has the plaintiff a valid cause of action for the suit? III. Whether Gangiya has executed the deed of gift under influence of Sohagi and her husband? IV. Whether Gangiya has exclusive right and title over the suit property? V. Whether the deed of gift executed by Gangiya is void? VI. Whether the plaintiff has been ousted from the suit property? VII. To what other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled? 12. The learned trial court ultimately held that the gift deed was valid only to the extent of 1/3rd share of Gangia Mahtain and the gift 2025:JHHC:29732 4 was declared to be void with respect to 2/3rd share which were that of the two daughters. 13. The learned 1st appellate court also considered the case and gave concurrent findings and dismissed the appeal. The learned 1st appellate court has held that it is well settled principle of law that possession of one co-sharer in a joint property is presumptively possession of all the co-sharers. It was an admitted fact that the suit property belonged to Rupan Mahto, who had no male issue and it was not in dispute that Rupan Mahto, died leaving behind his widow Gangia Mahtain and two daughter Sohagi Mahtain and Purni Mahtain. The learned court came to a conclusion that there is no perversity in the finding recorded by the learned trial court that after death of Rupan Mahto, his two daughters have mutual shares with Gangia Mahtain in the said house and she had right and title over the property in question only to the extent of 1/3rd share. 14. This Court is of the view that on the face of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act,1956, it is relatable to property of a female Hindu which as per this provision, is her exclusive property even when she acquires the same through inheritance. The same provision does not apply to the facts of the case. Rather, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act,1956, the property of a male dying interstate shall devolve according to the provisions of the chapter; firstly, upon the heirs being the relatives specified in Class I. This Court also finds that as per Section 9, among the heirs specified in the Schedule, those in Class I shall take simultaneously to the exclusion of other heirs. Class I heirs, inter alia, include the son, daughter, and widow. 15. On the plain reading of Sections 8 and 9 of Hindu Succession Act,1956, there can be no doubt that the property involved in this case devolved equally amongst all three heirs, that is, the widow and two daughters. The provision of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was also referred to by the learned court. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case, as it relates to a case governed by Madras School of Mitakshara Law and Mysore Hindu Law Women’s Right 2025:JHHC:29732 5 Act, 1933, which has no applicability to the facts of this case. Moreover, the incidents in the said case, particularly the sale deeds, were related to the period prior to coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Thus, the judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant does not help the appellant in any manner whatsoever. 16. While considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that no case has been made out for framing any substantial question of law in this second appeal. Otherwise also, the impugned judgements are well-reasoned judgements, which have been passed after considering the materials on record and no perversity as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that no substantial question of law is involved in this 2nd appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 17. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 18. Let a soft copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/email. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 23.09.2025. Saurav/