2025:JHHC:10155 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 39 of 2022 Shiv Shankar Singh, aged about 69 years, son of late Durga Singh, residents of Holding No.417, Line No.-14, Kasidih, P.O. & P.S. – Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum … … Appellant/Plaintiff/Appellant Versus 1. Bhikhari Sahu, son of Late Mani Lal Sahu 2. Shankar Lal Sahu, son of Late Mani Lal Sahu Both are resident of Holding No.417, Line No.14, Kasidih, P.O. & P.S. – Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum … … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents 3. Smt. Saraswati Devi, Daughter of late Durga Singh, resident of Holding No.417, Line No.-14, Kasidih, P.O. & P.S. – Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum … … Plaintiff/Appellant/Proforma Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Chayan Sarkar, Advocate : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : --- 09/19.03.2025 This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 31.03.2022 decree dated 08.04.2022 passed by learned 4th District Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Civil (Partition Appeal No. 27 of 2020, whereby the judgment dated 19.07.2012 and decree dated 02.08.2012, passed by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division VI), Jamshedpur in Original (Partition) Suit No. 150 of 2009 has been confirmed and ultimately the suit has been dismissed. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the suit was filed seeking partition of the property which originally stood in the name of Kunwar Sahu, a lessee under Tata Steel Ltd. and further stood transferred in the name of Manavati Sahu, who was a concubine (as Kunwar Sahu had relationship with Manwati Sahu during the lifetime of his wife, namely Jagouti Devi). He has submitted that in the document regarding transfer of property in name of Manwati Sahu, after death of Kunwar Sahu in the year 1959 it was mentioned that Manwati Sahu got that property in the capacity of widow of Kunwar 2025:JHHC:10155 2 Sahu. The learned counsel has further submitted that no child was born from the relationship between Kunwar Sahu and Manwati Sahu, and so far as the wife of Kunwar Sahu, namely Jagouti Devi, is concerned, she had three daughters. There was no surviving legal heirs and successor of the first daughter namely Ram Dulari Devi; the second daughter, namely Shayam Pyari Devi had two sons, Bhikhari Sahu and Shankar Lal Sahu, who were defendant nos.1 and 2 respectively. Manwati Sahu died in the year 1996 and Shankar Lal Sahu, defendant No. 2, was claiming the entire property by stating that he was the adopted son of Manwati Sahu, and he got the sublease transferred in his name in the year 2009 in the capacity of son of Manwati Sahu. 3. The learned counsel submits that the suit was decided ex parte as the defendants did not appear and contest the suit. He has further submitted that since Manwati Sahu had declared herself to be the wife of Kunwar Sahu at the time of transfer of the deed in her name and therefore, upon her death, the property should have devolved back to the other legal heirs and successors of Kunwar Sahu born through Jagwati Devi as Manwati Sahu had no child from Kunwar Sahu. He submits that in aforesaid circumstances, an important question of law arises for consideration in this case and refers to Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act and has submitted that if the wife dies interstate and had some property in her name in the capacity of widow of a Hindu family, then under such circumstances, the property would devolve back to the source i.e. to the legal heirs and successors of her husband. He submits that aforesaid aspect of the matter, though not raised before the learned courts, but is a point of law which arises for consideration and the second appeal be admitted by referring to Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act and the records be called for and notice be issued to the respondents. The learned counsel has referred to judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2010) 05 SCC 274 (S.R. Srinivasa and Ors. Vs. S. Padmavathamma) paragraph 34 to submit that the basic aim of section 15(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is to ensure that inherited 2025:JHHC:10155 3 property of an issueless female Hindu dying intestate goes back to the source. 4. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, this Court finds that the specific case of the plaintiff seeking partition of the suit property, which stood initially allotted to Kunwar Sahu by TISCO, who died in the year 1959, was that Manwati Sahu was not the legally wedded wife of Kunwar Sahu. This Court finds that, admittedly, the lease hold property stood transferred in name of Manwati Sahu showing her as widow of Kunwar Sahu and such transfer had taken place way back in the year 1962 and the suit property stood transferred to Shankar Lal Sahu, the adopted son of Manwati Sahu and Shankar Lal Sahu also the descendant of original allottee Kunwar Sahu through one of the daughters of Jagwati Devi. However, the suit property stood transferred exclusively in the name of Shankar Lal Sahu, showing that he was the adopted son of Manwati Sahu. 5. This Court finds that the transfer of lease in favour of Manwati Sahu and then to Shankar Lal Sahu by TISCO was never challenged, and this Court finds that the learned trial court framed as many as four issues, including issue no.3 as to “whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition over the suit premises” and, after considering the materials on record, the learned trial court decided that exhibit 7, showed that the lease of the land over the suit property was allotted in favour of Manwati Sahu, wife of Kunwar Sahu, and it was the specific case of the plaintiff that they have no relationship with Manwati Sahu and that she was not the legally wedded wife of Kunwar Sahu. 6. 6. This Court is of the view that once it was the specific case of the plaintiff that Manwati Sahu was not the legally wedded wife of Kunwar Sahu and in spite of such a stand, the transfer of property by TISCO in favour of Manwati Sahu through Exhibit 7 was never challenged by the plaintiff, the suit property which remained allotted to Manwati Sahu cannot be subject matter of partition and consequently, the learned trial court has rightly held that as per the plaintiff, they have no relationship with Manwati Sahu and 2025:JHHC:10155 4 consequently, the very claim over the suit property by the plaintiff was not sustainable. 7. The learned 1st appellate court has also considered the materials on record and has given the genealogical table in the impugned judgement and has framed the points of determination in paragraph no.10 as follows: “Q no. 1 Whether there is relationship between lease holder and the parties? Q no 2 Whether the findings of the learned lower court is sustainable or not?” 8. The learned 1st appellate court has observed that in the memo of appeal filed by the appellant, they had asserted that Kunwar Sahu died in the year 1959 leaving behind his two wives Jagwati Devi legally married wife and Manwati Sahu (concubine) and the appellate court observed that the said plea was beyond the pleadings of the appellant before the learned trial court in which they had mentioned that Manwati Sahu was concubine of Kunwar Sahu and that concubine does not come within the purview of meaning of wife. The learned appellate court ultimately held that it was the case of the plaintiff that they have no relationship with Manwati Sahu and therefore, ultimately held the plaintiff had no right to seek partition and claim 50% from the share of the suit land. 9. This Court finds that in a case where the proceeding was ex parte and it was the specific case of the plaintiff that Manwati Sahu was a concubine and ultimately the property stood transferred in the name of Manwati Sahu by TISCO by a document and the same was never under challenged, the learned court has rightly considered the specific case of the plaintiff wherein they stated that there was no relationship with Manwati Sahu and has rightly dismissed the suit seeking partition over the suit property. 10. 10. This Court finds that in such circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant referring to Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act will have no role to play once the case of the plaintiff was that they had no relationship with Manwati Sahu and they had termed her as concubine and the suit property stood transferred to her 2025:JHHC:10155 5 adopted son Shankar Lal Sahu. It is important to note that Shankar Lal Sahu is also a descendant of Kunwar Sahu, the original allottee. 11. This Court is of the considered view that the appellant seeking partition having taken specific stand that Manwati Sahu was a concubine and had no relationship with the plaintiff cannot be permitted to argue that she was the widow of Kunwar Sahu, and accordingly, the property would not devolve upon other legal heirs and successors of Kunwar Sahu. The fact remains that Shankar Lal Sahu is certainly one of the legal heirs and successors of Kunwar Sahu, the original allottee, though in the capacity of adopted son. Thus, the partition suit was filed without challenging the adoption of Shankar Lal Sahu and without challenging the allotment to Manwati Sahu and then to her adopted son Shankar Lal Sahu (who is admittedly one of the legal heir and successor of Kunwar Sahu) and without seeking any declaration with respect to the status of Manwati Sahu vis -a vis recorded allottee/tenant of TISCO, namely, Kunwar Sahu. The original plaintiff is the 3rd daughter of Jagouti Devi, and defendant no. 1 is the 1st son of the 2nd daughter of Jagouti Devi and the defendant no.2 (Shankar Lal Sahu) is the 2nd son of the 2nd daughter of Jagouti Devi. The findings of the learned 1st appellate court are quoted as under: - “All witnesses have claimed that defendant no.2 has illegally enter his name in Tata Steel company as sub lessee and he claims as absolute owner of the suit property. Initially, they have filed Civil Partition Appeal No.72 of 2012 in which they have amicably settled their dispute. During the pendency of the said appeal appellant no.1 has deposed that they have compromised the case and the compromise petition is marked as Exhibit – 1. He will get Schedule ‘A’ property of the compromise petition. Appellant no.2 who is witness no.2 has also stated the same thing. Respondent no.1 who also give statement as witness no.1 that they have compromised the case. He has also signed on the compromise petition which is marked as 2025:JHHC:10155 6 Exhibit-A. He further deposed that they will get Schedule ‘B’ property as their share which is mentioned in compromise petition. Respondent no 2 who also gave statement the same thing as witness no.1. Here one thing is arose whether parties are competent to compromise the case or not. The appellants have asserted in their plaint as well as memo of appeal that defendant no.2 has made some forgery of the documents without the knowledge and consent of their mother and thereby got his name transfer in the records of Tata Steel Limited, Jamshedpur in respect of the suit land. But they have neither filed any document before the lower Court nor before the appellant Court. So, the parties are not competent to compromise the case because they have got no right, title over the land. As this case proceeded ex – parte, there is no any iota of evidence from the side of the defendant. Exhibit – 7 shows the lease of the land over suit property which is allotted in the name of Mrs. Manawati wife of late Kumar Sahu who has been figured as concubine by the appellants/plaintiffs and the very genealogical table filed by the plaintiff as scheduled ‘B’ in their plaint, they have no relation with Manawati Devi whereby the very claim over the suit property by the plaintiff’s false flat as per-genealogical table. The plaintiffs are decedents of Jagouti Devi who is legally married wife of Kunwar Sahu. Exhibit – 6, 6/A and 6/B are the private documents which have got no sanctity and are useless in this case. On perusal of Exhibit – 1 it appears that the defendant no.2 has deposed in a criminal case that he has got no right over the suit property. As per the documents produced by the appellants the version of the defendant no.2 is quite correct. The appellants have also failed to produce the documents which shows that the defendant no.2 claiming to be adopted son of Manawati 2025:JHHC:10155 7 Sahu. There is no link with Manawati who is favour the Tisco has allotted the land on monthly tenancy, the appellants have no right to claim partition of the suit property. Hence, I find and hold that there is no relationship in between lease holder and the parties to the appeal thus the appellants are not entitled to get 50% of the share from the suit land.” 12. This Court finds that both the courts have scrutinized the materials on record and have rightly dismissed the partition suit filed by the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. 13. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed. 14. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/