2025:JHHC:34178 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S. A. No. 187 of 2022 1. Baisakhi Devi, aged about 60 years, Wife of Sitaram Durbey and Daughter of Late Katki Singh, Resident of Village- Simra, P.O.- Lakarbank, P.S.- Hansdiha (Ramgarh), Sub-Division and District- Dumka. 2. Duroo Devi, aged about 70 years, Wife of Ganesh Durbey and Daughter of Late Katki Singh, Resident of Village-Mahuwa, P.O.- Nanihat, P.S.- Jarmundi, Sub-Division and District- Dumka. 3. Biboo Devi, aged about 46 years, Wife of Late Ganesh Layak and Daughter of Late Katki Singh, Resident of Village-Siltha, P.O- Khuthan, P.S.-Hansdiha, Sub-Division and District-Dumka. 4. Kalabati Devi, aged about 55 years, Wife of Nagdi Layak and Daughter of Late Katki Singh. 5. Nabet Pd. Singh, aged about 85 years, Son of Late Maha Pd. Singh 6. Panchawan Singh, aged about 71 years, Son of Late Maha Pd. Singh 7. Suresh Singh, aged about 69 years, Son of Late Maha Pd. Singh. 8. Mohan Singh, aged about 49 years, Son of Late Maha Pd. Singh. All residents of Village- Jamabahiyar, P.O.- Singhni, P.S.- Jarmundi, Sub-Division and District-Dumka. 9. Sonabati Devi, aged about 77 years, Daughter of Late Maha Pd. Singh and Wife of Late Sripati Durbey, resident of Village- Ghortpi, P.O. and P.S.- Jarmundi, Sub-Division and District- Dumka. 10. Baijath Singh, aged about 42 years, Son of Late Dashrath Singh, resident of Village-Jamabahiyar, P.O.- Singhni, P.S.-Jarmundi, Sub-Division and District- Dumka. 11. Smt. Sarda Devi, aged about 62 years, Daughter of Late Dashrath Singh, resident of Village-Gouri Thanpur, P.O. and P.S.- Jama, Sub-Division and District-Gumla. 12. Smt. Hemabati Devi, aged about 37 years, Daughter of Late Dashrath Singh, resident of Village-Naribaran, P.O. and P.S.- Jarmundi, Sub-Division and District-Dumka. … … Defendants/Respondents/Appellants Versus 1. Indra Dev Mal, Son of Late Harihar Mal 2. Most. Sukri Devi, Wife of Late Jhaku Mal 3. Balram Mal, Son of Late Jhaku Mal 4. Napo Mal, Son of Late Jhaku Mal All residents of Village-Jamabehiyar, P.O- Singhni, P.S.-Jarmundi, Sub-Division and District-Dumka 2025:JHHC:34178 2 5. Amrita Devi 6. Milu Kumari 7. Sangika Kumari 8. Chanda Kumari All daughters of Late Muni Devi 9. Kongresh Layak, Son of not known All residents of Village-Ganeshpur, P.O. and P.S.- Jama, Sub- Division and District-Dumka. 10. Kumari Kulmanti Mal, Daughter of Late Jhaku Mal, Wife of Siji Manjhi 11. Gobardhan Mal, Son of Late Jagdish Mal 12. Deo Narain Mal, Son of Late Laru Mal 13. Shiv Narain Mal, Son of Late Laru Mal All resident of Village-Jamabehiyar, P.O.- Singhni, P.S.-Jarmundi, Sub-Division and District-Dumka. 14. Smt. Jaso Devi, Daughter of Late Laru Mal, Wife of Lakhi Kunwar, resident of Village-Sarapahari, P.O. and P.S.- Jama, Sub- Division and District-Dumka 15. Smt. Asho Devi, Daughter of Laru Mal, and Wife of Bhola Manjhi, resident of Village-Berbana, P.O., P.S. and District- Godda. … … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mahto, Advocate : Mr. Binod Kr. Mallah, Advocate : Ms. Anjana Rana, Advocate --- 16/13.11.2025 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.08.2022 (Decree sealed and signed on 12.09.2022) passed by the learned District Judge-II, Dumka in Title (Partition) Appeal No.14 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the plaintiffs has been allowed, setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 22.02.2017 (Decree sealed and signed on 10.03.2017) passed by 2025:JHHC:34178 3 the learned Senior Civil Judge-I, Dumka in Title Partition Suit No.47 of 2003. 3. The title partition suit was dismissed by the learned trial court and the 1st appeal filed by the plaintiffs was allowed by the learned 1st appellate court. Consequently, the defendants are the appellants before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the parties were separated prior of Gantzer’s settlement amongst Gurudayal and Kali Kumar. He submits that in spite of said separation having been shown in Gantzer’s settlement by separate recording the properties, the suit was filed seeking partition between the two branches of Gurudayal and Kali Kumar. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court assigning half share of the suit properties described in Schedule A, B and C of the plaint is not in accordance with law and accordingly substantial question of law be framed. He has heavily relied upon the recording made in the Gantzer’s settlement. He has also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in S.A No. 39 of 1995(R) [Harihar Mahto and Others vs. Doman Mahto and Others] and has referred paragraph 29, 30, 31, 32 and 41 of the said judgment. The learned counsel has submitted that the genealogy is also not in dispute in the present case. 5. This Court finds that the suit for partition was filed for partition of Schedule A, B and C property by metes and bounds stating that the parties are Hindu and governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu. The genealogy as provided by the plaintiffs has been mentioned in the paragraph 1 of the judgment passed by the learned trial court. 6. It was the case of the plaintiffs that Gurudayal and Kali Kumar were full brother who died before Gantzer’s settlement. Gurudayal died leaving behind two daughters namely Rohini Devi and Machurni Devi whereas Kali Kumar died leaving behind one daughter Bhukli Devi. The genealogy with respect to Rohini Devi, Machurni Devi and Bhukli Devi was mentioned in the plaint. 2025:JHHC:34178 4 7. It was the specific case of the plaintiffs that Gurudayal and Kali Kumar were separated in mess and they died before Gantzer’s settlement operation without final partition of the landed property which was fully described in Schedule ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ of the plaint though for their sake of convenience they possessed some properties separately without final partition by metes and bounds and some jointly. As such, the properties possessed by Gurudayal shown in possession of Most. Rohini and Most Manchurni jointly and the properties possessed by Kali Kumar shown in possession of Most. Bhukli, and the properties possessed jointly by Gurudayal and Kali Kumar was shown as Ijmal in the remark column of parcha in Gantzer’s settlement record. 8. It was their case that the plaintiffs jointly have got ½ share and interest in Schedule A, B & C properties and the cause of action arose when the requests for partition lastly made on 15th April, 1997. 9. As per the written statement filed by defendant Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10 and 11, the suit was not maintainable and that there was no cause of action. The defendants asserted that the genealogy was not complete and the defendants gave their own genealogy. It was asserted that Gurudayal Kumar and Kali Kumar were full brothers and they were sons of Jhalu Kumar and both were recorded tenants of Mc. Pherson’s settlement and both were separated in mess and property. Gurudayal died leaving behind two daughters Most. Rohini and Most. Manchurni, whereas Kali Kumar died leaving behind his daughter Most. Bhukli. Reliance was placed on the entries made in Gantzer’s settlement that in J.B No. 13 of Mouja Jamabahiyar in the Raiyti column of Parcha, name of Most. Rohini wife of Sashi Singh, Most. Manchurni wife of Satyanarayan Singh were recorded and at that time Most. Bhukli was not alive and as such the name of Laru Mal son of Sufal Mal was recorded in the Raiyati column of parcha and in the remarks column of parcha, separate possession was recorded in the zamabandi. It was also stated that in J.B No. 32 Plot No. 9, 10, 13 and 525 was recorded in separate possession of Most. Bhukli whereas Plot 2025:JHHC:34178 5 no. 11, 12, 15 and 128 were shown jointly recorded in separate possession of Most. Rohini and Most. Manchurni and the area of the lands fell in their share was approximately half and half which was described in schedule ‘B’ of the plaint. 10. Schedule ‘C’ property was part and parcel of J.B No. 32 of Mouza Daulatpur which was asserted to have been partitioned earlier, but some plots were wrongly and illegally possessed by Arjun Manjhi and others to which objection was raised through Objection Case No. 375 of 1929 and it was decided in favour of Manchurni and Rohini. 11. It was asserted that the properties described in Schedule A, B and C of the plaint were already partitioned prior to last Gantzer’s settlement and the parties were in peaceful possession of their respective shares and that there was no cause of action to file the suit. 12. A separate written statement was filed by the defendant No.9 as per whom the genealogy given in paragraph 2 of the plaint is not correct and it was asserted that the plaintiffs were entitled only to 1/3rd share of the schedule C and schedule A and B lands. The defendant No.1 died during the pendency of the suit and he was substituted by defendant No.1(a), 1(b) and 1(c). 13. The following issues were framed by the learned trial court. i. Is the suit maintainable in its present form? ii. Have the plaintiffs valid cause of action for the present suit? iii. Is the suit bad for mis joinder and non joinder of parties? iv. Is there unity of title and possession in between the parties? v. Whether suit property has already been partitioned? vi. Are the plaintiffs entitled to the claimed relief/reliefs? vii. To what other relief or reliefs, the plaintiffs are entitled to? 14. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidences. The learned trial court took up issue No. (i), (ii) and (iii) together and decided the same in favour of the plaintiffs by holding that the defendants did not claim on these points and ultimately decided the same in favour of the plaintiffs. 2025:JHHC:34178 6 15. Issue No. (iv) & (v) were taken up together. The learned trial court observed that when the evidence is seen, it was clear that there was no unity of title and possession between the parties and the scheduled properties have also been partitioned and all of them are staying separately as per the partition, may be by metes and bounds or mutual convenience and as such plaintiffs were not entitled for any partition. The learned trial court has considered the receipts regarding payment of revenue and observed that all the receipts were issued by Mukhiya and they do not prove jointness of property. 16. The learned 1st appellate court framed the following point for determination: - I. Point for determination No.1- whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of the suit properties? II. Point for determination No.2- If so, are they entitled to half share in the properties? III. Point for determination No.3- Whether the judgment and decree under appeal require any interference by this court or not? 17. While deciding the point of determination No.(I), the learned 1st appellate court was of the view that the core issue was as to whether there was unity of title and jointness of possession between the parties. The court also observed that if once there has been a partition, there cannot be a second partition of the same property. 18. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that the plaintiffs sought half share in the suit properties mentioned in Schedule A, B & C on the plea that there has been no partition by metes and bounds between full brothers namely Gurudayal and Kali Kumar, although they were separate in mess and they died before Gantzer’s settlement operation without final partition of their landed properties and for the sake of convenience they possessed some properties separately and some properties jointly. The admitted case of the parties were also recorded in paragraph 16 of the learned 1st appellate court judgment. 19. The Gantzer’s settlement report which was Exhibit-1 has been considered in paragraph 19 of the learned 1st appellate court judgment. The learned 1st appellate court clearly recorded that in absence of any 2025:JHHC:34178 7 documentary evidence of metes and bounds partition between Gurudayal and Kali Kumar or even thereafter, amongst the legal heirs and descendants i.e. Most. Rohini, Most. Manchurni and Most. Khukli/Ladu Mal cannot be inferred as it was apparent from the purcha i.e. Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-AE-1 that the suit lands mentioned in Schedule-A, B and C of the plaint have been jointly recorded in the name of Most. Rohini, Most. Manchurni and Most. Bhukli. The learned 1st appellate court also rejected the reliance of the defendants on Exhibit-C the certified copy of order of Objection Case No.375 of 1929 dated 01.10.1929 passed by Settlement Officer, Santhal Pargana. The learned 1st appellate court was of the view that the said document did not help the defendants as the lands were admittedly jointly recorded in the name of Most. Manchurni, Most. Rohini & Most. Bhukli and could not have been allotted and given in possession by the Settlement Officer only in favour of Most. Manchurni and Most. Rohini, merely because it was they who had filed the case before the Settlement Officer for eviction of Arjun Manjhi and others who were in illegally possession of the property. 20. The learned 1st appellate court was of the view that the entries of name in column of possession merely shows separate possession of the land by the parties concerned, but the same cannot be taken as proof of partition between parties by metes and bounds. 21. Learned 1st appellate court has referred to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Patna High Court and observed that “Kabajwari” meant possession by convenience and the same cannot be taken as proof of inference of partition amongst co-sharer more so when some of the plots in the same khata remained in joint and ultimately discarded the case of the defendants and was of the view that the plaintiffs have been able to prove the case for partition and directed for partition accordingly. 22. 22. This Court finds that it was admitted on records that some of the properties were shown in separate possession, but some of the properties still remained in joint possession as per the Gantzer’s 2025:JHHC:34178 8 settlement and the defendants have failed to prove that there was partition by metes and bounds. Separate in mess and separate cultivation does not lead to the conclusion that there was partition amongst co-sharers, much less partition by metes and bounds. 23. So far as the judgment passed by this Court in Second Appeal being S.A. No. 39 of 1995 (R) (Supra) is concerned, in the said case, the partition had taken place long back before the Cadestral Survey and in terms of the partition separate properties were allocated and the same state of things continued even in the corresponding Revisional survey and parties were separated in mess, resident and cultivation have dealt with the land of their share. The court recorded that the defendants also produced the registered deed of exchange dated 06.07.1985 (Exhibit B) showing separate dealings of the parties with respect to their separate lands and this deed was prior to filing of the suit. 24. In the said case the learned 1st court recorded that it was evident from survey record of right that both the parties have been separately possessing the same blocks of land of their respective share for more than 90 years and therefore from the course of conduct of the parties to the suit land and the course of their conduct of their ancestors, it could be safely held that there has been partition since before cadastral survey (CS) even though specific document of such partition was not available on record. 25. In the present case admittedly some of the properties were shown recorded in joint name of the parties and considering the discussions of the materials on record, this Court is considered view that the defendants have failed to prove the assertion of previous partition as held by the learned 1st appellate court. Accordingly, there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. 26. This Court finds no illegality in the aforesaid findings of the learned 1st appellate court with respect to each point of determination and setting aside the judgement of the learned trial court and this 2025:JHHC:34178 9 Court is of the considered view that no question of law, much less, any substantial question of law is involved in this case. 27. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in this 2nd appeal which is hereby dismissed. 28. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 29. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned courts through “FAX/e-mail”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 13.11.2025 Rakesh/- Uploaded on :-05.02.2026