2025:JHHC:36950 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 563 of 2017 1. Sukra Oraon, Son of Budhram Oraon 2. Turia Oraon 3. Soma Oraon Sl. No. 2 & 3 sons of Sumer Oraon 4. Ram Oraon, Son of Late Karma Oraon 5. Mahadeo Oraon 6. Khadi Oraon Sl. No. 5 & 6 sons of Futu Oraon 7. Nago Oraon 8. Sukra Oraon Sl. No. 7 & 8 sons of Ghura Oraon 9. Budhwa Oraon, Son of Manboth Oraon 10. Bandhana Oraon, Son of Sukra Oraon All residents of Village: Arko, P.O. & P.S. Sisai, District Gumla … … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants Versus 1. Lakhna Oraon, Son of Mangra Oraon 2. Muni Tana Bhagtasin, W/o Mangra Oraon 3. Kundi Kumari, D/o Bhikha Oraon All residents of village Arko, P.O.+P.S. Sisai, District Gumla 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, P.O.+P.S.+District Gumla … … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocate --- 09/9th December 2025 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 28th July, 2017 (decree sealed & signed on 10.08.2017) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Gumla in Title Appeal No. 17/2013, whereby the learned 1st appellate court has affirmed and upheld the judgment dated 2025:JHHC:36950 2 06.05.2013 (decree sealed & signed on 18.05.2013) passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) – II, Gumla in Title Suit No. 11/1999. 3. The plaintiffs have lost in both the courts and are the appellants before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the genealogical table as projected by the plaintiffs is at internal page 3 of the trial court’s judgment. He submits that it was admitted case between the parties that the recorded tenant was Soma Oraon, who had two sons, namely, Sukra Oraon and Baiju Oraon. The plaintiffs are the male descendants of Sukra Oraon and so far as Baiju Oraon is concerned, his line extinguished with respect to male descendant upon death of Bhikha Oraon, who died on 05.04.1985. He submits that Bhikha Oraon left behind his widow, namely, Muni Tana Bhagtain (defendant no. 2) and one daughter, namely, Kundi Kumari (defendant no. 3). The learned counsel submits that since the parties are governed by Customary Law of Inheritance, therefore, the property did not devolve upon the wife or daughter of Bhikha Oraon. 5. The learned counsel submits that it was the specific case of the plaintiffs that upon death of Bhikha Oraon, his wife Muni Tana Bhagtain (defendant no. 2) developed relationship with one Mangra Oraon, out of that, three children were born; they are, Lakhna Oraon, Ram Lakhan Oraon and Lakhni Oraon. Since the case of the plaintiffs was that Lakhna Oraon was not the son of Bhikha Oraon, therefore, he was not entitled to inherit the property of Baiju Oraon. 6. The learned counsel submits that the case of the defendants was that Bhikha Oraon had expired on 03.04.1987 and not on 05.04.1985 and at the time of death of Bhikha Oraon, his wife (defendant no. 2) was already pregnant, who gave birth to a son, namely, Lakhna Oraon on 01.10.1987. The name of father of Bhikha Oraon was also Lakhna Oraon. The learned counsel submits that the defendants asserted that a male child was born to Bhikha Oraon and therefore the property allocated to Baiju Oraon would 2025:JHHC:36950 3 not revert to the agnates who were the descendants of Sukra Oraon (full brother of Baiju Oraon). 7. The learned counsel submits that both the plaintiffs and the defendants exhibited death certificate of Bhikha Oraon. Exhibit-3 is the death certificate of Bhikha Oraon, which was issued on 02.04.2004 showing the date of death as 05.04.1985, exhibited by the plaintiffs; Exhibit-C is the death certificate of Bhikha Oraon which was issued on 18.08.1989 showing the date of death as 03.04.1987, exhibited by the defendants and Exhibit-D was the birth certificate of Lakhna Oraon which is dated 23.08.1989 showing the date of birth of Lakhna Oraon as 01.10.1987. Exhibit-3 was issued by Panchayat Sewak, Exhibit-C was also issued by Panchayat Sewak, but he was a different person and Exhibit-D was issued by the same person who had issued Exhibit-C. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that both the courts have committed perversity in recording a finding that Bhikha Oraon had expired on 03.04.1987 and his son was born on 01.10.1987 based on Exhibit-C and D. The learned counsel submits that Exhibit-3, which was produced by the plaintiffs to prove the date of death of Bhikha Oraon as 05.04.1985, has been wrongly discarded by both the learned courts. The learned counsel submits that if Exhibit-3 is taken into consideration, then the so-called son of Bhikha Oraon was born much after the death of Bhikha Oraon and therefore it cannot be said that there was a son of Bhikha Oraon who could inherit the property of Baiju Oraon. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this court finds that the specific case of the plaintiffs was that the plaintiffs are by caste “Oraon” and they are governed by their own customary law in the matter of inheritance and succession. As per customary law, the widow and daughters are not entitled to inherit the properties of their husband/father and they are entitled to maintenance till their death or till remarriage in case of widow and till their marriage, in case of daughter. 2025:JHHC:36950 4 10. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the land under Khata Nos. 123 and 124 and khewat no. 10 of village Arko were in the name of recorded tenant Naika Oraon and Baiju Oraon, both sons of Pandra Oraon. Naika Oraon died issuless, Baiju Oraon died leaving behind his only son Lakhna Oraon, who also died leaving behind his son Bhikha Oraon and Bhikha Oraon died leaving behind his widow Muni Tana Bhagtain(defendant no.2) and daughter Kundi Kumari (defendant no. 3). It was their further case that the plaintiffs are the nearest agnates of the recorded tenant Naika Oraon and Baiju Oraon and after the death of Bhikha Oraon, his wife Muni Tana Bhagtain left the house of Bhikha Oraon and married with Mangra Oraon in “Dhuku” form of marriage and with cohabitation of Mangra Oraon and Muni Tana Bhagatain, two sons were born, one Lakhna Oraon (defendant no.1) and the name of the other son is not known. Hence, the plaintiffs claimed that defendant nos. 1 and 2 have no right, title, interest and possession over the land in question and the plaintiffs being the nearest agnates of Bhikha Oraon came in the possession over the suit land. 11. It is their further case that the plaintiffs filed the mutation case in the court of Circle Officer, Sisai, who after inquiry got the land mutated in the name of plaintiffs on 02.07.2008 and against that order, defendant no. 2 preferred an appeal before the learned DCLR, who allowed the appeal on 14.09.1995 in M.A. Case No. 09/1991-92 and against that order, the plaintiffs preferred revision before the Additional Collector, Gumla, who allowed the Revision in Revision No. 06/1995-96 dated 11.04.1996 and against that order, defendant no. 2 preferred second revision in the court of learned Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur, Ranch being Revision No. 280/1996 and the learned Commissioner after hearing the parties allowed the revision vide order dated 25.01.1999, which is illegal, in- operative. It is their case that after the death of Bhikha Oraon, defendant no. 1 to 3 never came into possession over the suit land. Further after survey operation, the suit khata was prepared in the name of the plaintiffs 2025:JHHC:36950 5 including Kundi Kumari (defendant no. 3). The plaintiffs stated that mutation neither created any right nor extinguished title of any party and the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit property. Since the order passed by the learned Commissioner casted a cloud over the title of the appellants/plaintiffs, therefore cause of action arose on 25.01.1999 when the learned Commissioner passed the order and the suit was filed. 12. The defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 have filed their joint written statement stating stated that the suit is not maintainable, barred by law of limitation and the plaintiffs have got no cause of action for the suit. The plaintiffs admitted that the suit land is recorded in the name of Naika Oraon and Baiju Oraon, both sons of Panda Oraon. The defendants claimed that Bhikha Oraon died on 03.04.1987 and not on 04.05.1985. They further claimed that after the death of Bhikha Oraon, within six months of his death, his son Lakhna Oraon was born on 01.10.1987 and when Bhikha Oraon died, during that period, defendant no. 2 was pregnant and therefore Lakhna Oraon is the legitimate son of Bhikha Oraon. The defendants further stated that the plaintiffs were not the nearest agnates of the recorded tenants Naika Oraon and Baiju Oraon and as such, the question of being nearest agnates of the recorded tenant does not arise while the male member of the recorded tenant is alive. 13. It is the further case of the defendants that it is false to say that after the death of Bhikha Oraon, the plaintiffs became the absolute owner of the properties left by Bhikha Oraon being nearest agnate. It was stated that the genealogical table given by the plaintiffs was incorrect and the correct genealogical table has been projected by the defendants. Further, the defendants denied that after the death of Bhikha Oraon, his wife Muni Tana Bhagtain left the house of Bhikha Oraon. The defendants claimed that the death certificate of Bhikha Oraon and birth certificate of Lakhna Oraon exhibited by the defendants have been issued by the competent 2025:JHHC:36950 6 authority and therefore, the defendants have right, title, interest and possession over the suit property. 14. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court had framed the following issues for consideration: - “(i) Is the suit, as framed, maintainable in its present form? (ii) Is the suit barred by law of limitations, waiver and acquiescence? (iii) Whether the suit is under-valued? (iv) Whether the plaintiffs have valid cause of action for the suit? (v) Whether the order passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur, Ranchi in Revision Case No. 280 of 1996 on 25- 01-1999 is illegal and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs? (vi) Whether the plaintiffs have legal right, title, interest and possession over the suit lands? (vii) Whether defendant No. 1 Lakhna Oraon, S/o Late Bhikha Oraon was in the womb of his mother defendant No. 2 Muni Tana Bhagatain at the time of death of his father? (viii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get any other relief or reliefs?” 15. This Court finds that the learned trial court while considering Exhibit-3, exhibited by the plaintiffs, in paragraph 26 of the judgment has specifically referred to the evidence of P.W.-13, who deposed that in the year 2004 he was posted in Sisai Circle of Bhurso Panchayat and in his cross-examination, he has stated that he was never posted as Panchayat Sewak in Hesagutu Panchayat and he could not say that on 02.04.2004 who was the Pancayat Sewak of Hesagutu Panchayat. The learned trial court observed that as per Exhibit-3, it was issued by Hesagutu Panchayat and it only contained the seal, but did not contain the signature of any Panchayat Sewak and ultimately held that Exhibit-3 was forged and fabricated document and could not be relied upon. Thus, the learned trial court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that Bhikha Oraon had expired on 05.04.1985 which was the specific case of the plaintiffs in the plaint. 16. The learned trial court further recorded that the death certificate of Bhikha Oraon (Exhibit-C) and birth certificate of his son, namely, Lakhna 2025:JHHC:36950 7 Oraon (Exhibit-D) were valid and ultimately recorded that at the time of death of Bhikha Oraon, his wife was pregnant and within six months she gave birth to Lakhna Oraon. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed by the learned trial court. 17. The learned 1st appellate court has also discussed the materials placed on record and found that the main issues involved in this case are Whether Bhikha Oraon died on 04.05.1985, as claimed by the plaintiffs or he died on 03.04.1987, as claimed by the defendants and further recorded that there is no such issue has been framed on this point and accordingly the learned 1st appellate court recast the issues in the following manner: - “(i) Is the suit, as framed, maintainable in its present form? (ii) Is the suit barred by law of limitations, waiver and acquiescence? (iii) Whether the suit is under-valued? (iv) Whether the plaintiffs have valid cause of action for the suit? (v) Whether the order passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur, Ranchi in Revision Case No. 280 of 1996 on 25-01-1999 is illegal and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs? (vi) Whether the plaintiffs have legal right, title, interest and possession over the suit lands? (vii) Whether defendant No. 1 Lakhna Oraon, S/o Late Bhikha Oraon was in the womb of his mother defendant No. 2 Muni Tana Bhagatain at the time of death of his father? (viii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get any other relief or reliefs? (ix) Whether Bhikha Oraon died on 04-05-1985, as claimed by the plaintiffs or he died on 03.04.1987, as claimed by the defendants?” 18. The learned 1st appellate court also considered Exhibit-3 and also the evidence of P.W.-13 in paragraph 48 and 49 and ultimately recorded its opinion that the person who issued Exhibit-3 had no power to issue the same and since it has been issued by a person, who was not competent to issue such document under law, therefore, it has no evidentiary value. 2025:JHHC:36950 8 Paragraph 48 and 49 of the appellate court’s judgment are quoted as under: - “48. Now coming to the documentary evidence of the parties. At first, I would like to consider Ext. 3 along with Ext. C., the two death certificates issued by two different persons in respect of death of one person, namely, Bhikha Oraon. I have gone through Ext. 3 and On careful consideration of the same, I find that Ext. C was issued on 18-08-1889 on the basis of Registration No. 6 dated 06-04-1987, whereas Ext. 3 was issued on 02-04-2004, on the basis of registration number 21 dated 02-04-2004. If I shall read these two exhibits together then I find that one death certificate ie Ext. C is issued on the basis of registration number 6 dt. 06-04- 1987 ie, after three days of the death of the person, whereas the other death certificate ie Ext. 3 was issued after 19 years of the death of the person and that too on the same day when the registration was made. I have already referred Section 13 of the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969 in the aforementioned para and on the basis of that when I shall consider these two documentary evidences along with the evidence of the person, who have issued these two certificates, which I have discussed in the aforementioned para then I find, Section 13 (3) clearly says that any birth or death, which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only on the order made by a magistrate of Ist class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. 49. In the light of that provision, when I shall consider Ext. 3 along with the evidence of PW.13, who claimed to be a person, who issued Ext. 3 then I am of the considered view that this witness himself in para 6 of his cross examination admits this fact that he is empowered to issue the certificate, if the death is within one year, therefore, this witness is aware with the law that if the death of a person is registered after one year then he is not empowered to issue a certificate unless he obtains a written permission or by the order of a Magistrate of Ist Class or a Presidency magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death. In the light of his evidence and the admitted position of law, when I shall consider Ext. 3 along with his evidence then I am of the considered view that although this witness during cross examination deposed that he issued the certificate after making 2025:JHHC:36950 9 inquiry but this part of his evidence has not been corroborated by Ext. 3, which shows that the day when the information regarding the death of Bhikha was registered on the same day, he issued the death certificate, which under the law, he was not competent to issue, if the registration of death has been made after the expiry of one year of the death of a person. Hence, in my opinion, the person, who has issued Ext. 3 had no power to issue the same and since it has been issued by a person, who was not competent to issue under the law, therefore, I am of the considered view that it has got no evidentiary value.” 19. The learned 1st appellate court has also considered the evidence of P.W.-8, who in his cross-examination, in para 29, admitted that in the house of Bhikha Oraon, only Lakhna and Kundi were residing with Muni Tana Bhagtain. 20. This Court finds that both the learned courts have considered the oral and documentary evidences on record to come to a finding that at the time of death of Bhikha Oraon, his wife was pregnant and gave birth to a male child on 01.10.1987. 21. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that both the learned courts have properly scrutinized the materials placed on record to come to concurrent findings of facts . No perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidences on record could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants calling for framing any substantial question of law. 22. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. 23. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. 24. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 09.12.2025 Uploaded on: 06.02.2026 Mukul/-