2025:JHHC:31570 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 522 of 1991 (P) 1. (a) Mostt. Sabitri Devi, wife of late Murlidhar Singh (b) Raj Kumar Singh, son of late Murlidhar Singh (c ) Sanjay Kumar Singh, son of late Murlidhar Singh (d) Uttam Kumar Singh, son of late Murlidhar Singh (e ) Goutam Kumar Singh, son of late Murlidhar Singh All resident of village Uparbandha, P.O. Palajori, P.S. Palajori, District Deoghar (Jharkhand) … … Defendants/Appellants/Appellants Versus 1 (a) (i) Dropadi Debya, W/o late Radha Nath Singh Choudhary (deleted v.o.d. 13.10.2025) (a) (ii) Yamuna Singh Choudhary, son of late Radha Nath Singh Choudhary (iii) Pandav Singh Choudhary son of late Gangadhar Singh Choudhary (iv) Shalendra Singh Choudhary, son of late Gangadhar Singh Choudhary (v) Sindhu Devi, daughter of late Gangadhar Singh Choudhary (ii) Ajodhya Prasad Singh Chaudhary (iii) Achko Prasad Singh Chaudhary (iv) Shanti Devi, 1. (5) (i)Pramod Kumar Singh, mother of late Bilash Devi (ii) Vinod Kumar Singh, mother of late Bilaso Devi (iii) Nandrani Devi, mother of late Bilash Devi (iv) Manorma Devi, mother of late Bilash Devi (v) Baby Devi, mother of late Bilash Devi All R/o village – Kurma, P.O. & P.S. – Sarath, District - Deoghar (vi) Keba Devi, (vii) Sulo Devi, (viii) Sakhi Devi All are daughters of deceased Resident of village Chutiaro, P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad 2. (i) Sita Ram Rai, son of late Baikunth Rai, resident of village- Uparbandh, P.S. and P.O.- Palojori, District- Deoghar at present R/o village- Hathelaldah, P.O.- Kukaraha, P.S.- Chitra, District Deoghar (ii) Dropadi Devi, D/o late Baikunth Rai, H/o Bhagirath Sahi, R/o village- Nawadih, P.O. and P.S- Sarawa, District- Deoghar. (iii) Utara Devi, D/o late Baikunth Rai, H/o Lalin Rai, R/o village- Govindpur, P.O.- Phulchua, P.S.- Chitra, District- Deoghar. Respondent Nos.2 (i) to (iii) dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2025 3. Turni Devi, W/o late Tahadi 4. Ram Prasad Rai, S/o late Tahadi Rai 2025:JHHC:31570 2 5. Sebram Kumar 6. Suho Kumari 7. Prabin Kumar 8. Priyasi Kumari, D/o late Tahadi Rai, Nos.4 to 8 are minors, represented through his natural guardian, his mother Turni Devi Resident of village Uparbandha, P.S. Palojori, District - Deoghar 9. Brahma Rai, son of Mahabir Rai 10. (a) Umeshwar Pd. Rai (b) Deonandan Pd. Rai (c ) Shyam Sundar Pd. Rai, All s/o late Bishnu Rai (R-10) All R/o village – Tetaria, P.O. Bandey Tetaria P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar 11. Tribeni Devi, D/o Khudi Rai Nos.9 and 10 are residents of village Tetaria, P.S. Madhupur, Dist. Deoghar, and No.11 is resident of village Upar Bahiar, P.S. Sarath, District - Deoghar … … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Sunil Kr. Mahato, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Arvind Choudhary, Advocate : Ms. Vinita Prakash, Advocate --- 36/13.10.2025 This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 19.09.1991 and decree dated 28.09.1991 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Deoghar in Title Appeal No.14 of 1977/ 9 of 91 affirming the judgement and decree of Additional Sub-judge, Deoghar dated 15.12.1976 passed in Title Suit No.31 of 1973 / 60/76. I.A. No.13866 of 2025 2. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that I.A. No.13866 of 2025 has been filed for deletion of the name of respondent no.1 (a) (i) namely Dropadi Debeya, who has expired way back in the year 2016. She submits that her legal heirs are already on record. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has no objection for the prayer for deletion. 4. Considering the submission made, I.A. No.13866 of 2025 is allowed. The name of respondent no.1 (a) (i) namely Dropadi Debeya is permitted to be deleted from the cause title. 2025:JHHC:31570 3 5. The learned counsel for the respondents is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the memo of appeal during the course of the day. 6. This 2nd appeal was admitted for final hearing by framing substantial question of law, vide order dated 19.12.1991: “Whether the judgement and decree passed by the court below can be sustained because they did not attach the presumption in favour of the appellant as provided under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption Act?” 7. Vide order dated 19.06.2025, the appellants were directed to take necessary steps for issuance of notice in both ways, i.e., registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process by filing requisites etc. within a period of two weeks, for appearance of substituted legal heirs of respondent No.2 as incorporated in the memo of appeal, otherwise necessary orders will be passed. 8. The required notice was not properly filed and thereafter order dated 08.08.2025 was passed wherein two weeks’ peremptory time was granted to the learned counsel for the appellants to comply with the order dated 19.06.2025 with regard to service of notice to the legal heirs of respondent no.2. Order dated 08.08.2025 reads as under: “As per the office note, the requisites in terms of order no.32 dated 19.06.2025 has not been properly filed. 2. Two weeks’ time is granted to the learned counsel for the appellants to comply with the order dated 19.06.2025 with regards to legal heirs of respondent no.2 at their present and correct address, failing which the instant appeal shall stand dismissed as against the concerned respondents without any further reference to the Bench. 3. Post this case on 06.10.2025. 4. Office is directed to place the records of S.A. No.521 of 1991 (P) along with the present records, which is said to have been abated vide order dated 08.09.2022.” 9. In spite of such an opportunity, the order was not complied and the appeal stood dismissed for non-compliance of order dated 08.08.2025 as against the legal heirs of respondent no.2. 2025:JHHC:31570 4 10. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that he has got no instructions in the matter from his client and he is otherwise also not ready to argue the matter. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that arising out of the same judgement, one second appeal being S.A. No.521 of 1991 (P) was filed and on account of death of Baikunth Rai (the sole appellant of the case), who is one of the defendants in the case, the said Second appeal stood abated vide order dated 08.09.2022. 12. The learned counsel has submitted that in the present case, the respondent no.2 is Baikunth Rai and this appeal has also stood dismissed as against the legal heirs of respondent no.2 on account of non-compliance of order dated 08.08.2025. He submits that nothing survives in this appeal. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants has no instruction to argue the matter and otherwise also, the learned counsel is not ready to argue. The fact remains that the appeal has been dismissed as against the legal heirs of respondent no.2. In view of the submissions that the learned counsel for the appellants has no instructions and that he is not ready to argue the case, this Second appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution. 14. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 15. Let a soft copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/email. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 13.10.2025 Saurav/ Uploaded on 15.10.2025