2026:JHHC:824 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 478 of 2018 1. Baldeo Mahali, aged about 60 years, son of Late Ganesh Mahali 2. Kitabu Mahali, aged about 35 years, son of Late Radhaya mahali 3. Jhathu Mahali, aged about 32 years, son of late Radhaya Mahali … … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants Versus 1. Dinu Mahali, son of Late Hari Mahli 2. Balmukund Mahli, son of Late Hari Mahli 3. Sanicharwa Mahli, son of late Hari Mahli 4. Ram Jatan Mahli, son of Late Panchu Mahli All resident of village Messal, P.O. & P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi 5. Sukra Oraon, son of late Goyendra Oraon, resident of village Sursa, P.O. Murma, P.s. Madar, District Ranchi 6. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District- Ranchi … … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Ms. Sarweshwari Kumari, Advocate For the Respondents : --- 16/13th January 2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 21.08.2018 (decree signed on 31.08.2018) passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2017 affirming the judgment dated 06.09.2017 (decree signed on 18.09.2017) passed by the learned Additional Munsif XIII, Ranchi in Partition Suit No. 161 of 2009. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the suit was filed for partition of the suit property, but the learned trial court dismissed the suit and the learned 1st appellate court also dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned courts have not appreciated the materials on record properly and 2026:JHHC:824 2 therefore, the judgments passed by the learned courts are perverse. She submits that a substantial question of law be framed and the appeal be decided. 5. The suit was filed for the following reliefs: - (A) That a preliminary decree be passed partitioning the suit property giving half share to the plaintiffs and their share be carved out by appointment of survey knowing advocate and after passing the final decree plaintiffs be put in possession of their share by process of Court. (B) That it be declared that the permission granted in Misc. Case No. 611 R8II of 2007-08 dated 04.01.2008 by the Rent Suit Deputy Collector, Ranchi be declared ab-initio void, ineffective, imperative and fraudulent. (C) That it be declared that the sale deed bearing no. 750 dated 17th January 2008 executed by Sukra Mahali defendant no. 1 to defendant no. 6 Sukra Oraon be declared ab-initio fraudulent, void, illegal, inoperative, imperative and ineffective and not binding on the plaintiffs and defendant no. 2 to 5. (D) All cost of the suit. (E) Any other relief or reliefs which the plaintiffs may be entitled may be given to them.” 6. The case of the plaintiffs was that land of Khata nos. 74 and 75 of Village Sursa, P.S.-102, District Ranchi was recorded in the name of ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 5. Khata no. 74 was recorded in the name of Bigu, Ganesh, Chamru, Son of Sukra Mahali and Charwa, Budhwa and Tepia Mahali, Son of Radheya Mahali, whereas Khata no. 75 was recorded in the name of Bigu, Ganesh and Chamru Mahali, Son of Sukra Mahali in R.S. record of rights. The land of Khata nos. 74 and 75 was in joint possession of the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 1 to 5 and the same was not divided between the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 1 to 5, but for convenience they were cultivating the suit property separately. 2026:JHHC:824 3 7. It was their further case that Sukra Mahali, Son of Chamru Mahali, who was defendant no. 1, without any consent and approval of the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 2 to 5, sold 30 decimals of land of plot no. 553 Khata no. 75 by way of absolute sale vide deed no. 750 dated 17.01.2008 to defendant no. 6, Sukra Oraon and the permission of the concerned authority for sale has been obtained fraudulently vide Case No. 611R8II of 2007-08. It was alleged that the defendant no. 1 in collusion with defendant no. 6, committed fraud on the plaintiffs as well as defendant nos. 2 to 5. 8. The defendant nos. 1 to 5 had appeared and filed their written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs. 9. On the other hand, the defendant no. 6 had contested the suit and filed his written statement by stating that the plaintiffs and the defendant no. 1 had amicably partitioned the suit land and defendant no. 1 was in peaceful possession of the property that was sold by him to defendant no. 6 vide registered sale deed no. 750 dated 17.01.2008 after taking considering amount of Rs. 75,000/- and after obtaining due permission under Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 from the concerned authority vide Case No. 611R8II of 2007-08. It was asserted that the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 2 to 5 were well aware about the permission case and the property i.e. R.S. Plot No. 553, Khata no. 75, area 30 decimals out of total 60 decimals sold by defendant no. 1 to defendant no. 6 is a lawful transaction and the question of cancellation of the sale deed did not arise. 10. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration: - “1) Is the suit as framed maintainable? 2) Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit? 3) Whether there is unity of title and possession between the plaintiffs and the defendant no. 2-5? 2026:JHHC:824 4 4) Whether there was any previous partition between the plaintiffs and the defendant no. 2-5.? 5) Whether the permission granted in Misc. Case No. 611R8 II of 2007-08, vide order dated 04.0..108 by the Rent suit Deputy Collector, Ranchi is void and be declared void ineffective and inoperative and fraudulent? 6) Whether the sale deed no. 750 dated 17.01.2008 executed by Sukra Mahali defendant no. 1 in favour of the defendant no. 6 is fraudulent, void and illegal and required to be declared as such? 7) It the plaintiffs entitled to the relief/s claimed?” 11. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidences. 12. The learned trial court considered issue nos. 3 and 4 together and recording a finding in paragraph 14 that the property was already partitioned between Sukra Mahali and Radheya Mahali before preparation of khatiyan and the name of sons of both Sukra Mahali and Radheya Mahali has been given in khatiyan of Khata no. 74, but they were in separate possession as per the remark column of the khatiyan. It was also clear from the khatiyan of Khata no. 75 that the sons of Radheya Mahali had no share in Khata no. 75. The learned trial court further recorded that separate possession of two groups (that is sons of Sukra Mahali in one group and sons of Radheya Mahli in other group) has been shown in khatiyan itself published in the year 1935 and these facts have also been admitted by the plaintiffs in the plaint that they were in separate possession as per convenience. It was recorded that after the lapse of about 73 years, when a portion of land is sold by the son of one of the recorded raiyats, the suit was filed seeking partition and challenging the sale deed. The learned trial court ultimately recorded its finding at paragraph 15 of the judgment, which is quoted as under: - “15. From the reasons and discussion made herein above, I find that khata no. 74 and 75 are involved in this suit. So far as khata no. 75 is concerned, defendant no. 2 to 5 have no right or title 2026:JHHC:824 5 over this khata because they are successors of Charwa Mahali, Budhuwa Mahali and Tapia Mahali sons of Radhiya Mahali and their names have not been mentioned in khata no. 75 and as such there is no unity of title between plaintiffs and defendant no. 2 to 5 in respect, of khata no. 75. Khata no. 75 is recorded in the name of Bigu Mahali, Ganesh Mahali and Chamru Mahali sons of Sukra Mahali. Out of whom Bigu Mahali died issueless, Chamru Mahali died leaving behind Sukra Mahali (Defendant no.1) who also died issueless as discussed herein above hence all the remaining interest of Bigu Mahali and Chamru Mahali devolved upon the sons of one of the recorded raiyat and brother of Bigu Mahali and Chamru Mahali namely Ganesh Mahali and the sons of Ganesh Mahali are Baldeo Mahali and Radheya Mahali (the plaintiff). Thus, entire remaining interest of khata no. 75 devolved upon them and defendant no. 2 to 5 have no right in that khata so there is no unity of title so far as khata no. 75 is concerned. So far as khata no. 74 is concerned, it is already discussed above that the same has already been previously partitioned between Bigu Mahali and others in one part and Charwa Mahali and others in another part. Thus, from the khatiyan of khata no. 74, I find that though there is unity of title between plaintiffs and defendant no. 2 to 5 in respect of khata no. 74 but the property has already been partitioned between their ancestors, as per the entry in khatiyan, So the same cannot be again partitioned. And as such, issue no. 3 and 4 is hereby decided.” 13. Thereafter, the learned trial court took up issue nos. 5 and 6 together and after considering the materials on record decided these issues from paragraph 16 onwards. The learned trial court observed that the factum of partition was already admitted by defendant no. 2 to 5 in the contents of exhibit-E and ultimately the learned trial court held that Exhibit-3 (the permission for transfer of land in permission case no. 611R811 of 2007-08) was the lawful transaction and was fully acted upon. Paragraph 16 to 18 of the trial court’s judgment are quoted as under: - “16. Apart from the above discussion made herein above, one more document is to be taken into consideration that is Ext.-A, that is agreement dated 04.04.2007. The entire content of the agreement has been admitted by the plaintiff no. 1 himself in 2026:JHHC:824 6 para-24 and 25 of his cross examination where Sukra Mahali has been permitted to sale out the half portion of plot no. 553 and thereafter the sale deed in question that is deed no. 750 dated 17.01.2008 has been executed after taking permission of the concerned authority. From this facts, the plaintiffs are also stopped from challenging the legality of the said sale seed by the principle of estoppel under section 115 of the Evidence Act. 17. Exhibit -E is also one of the most important document by which the defendant no. 2 to 5 have sold plot no. 25 of khata no. 74 area 68 decimals to one Biga Oraon and from the contents of this sale deed, I find that defendant no. 2 to 5 who are vendors of this deed has stated that the land of this deed is their khatiyani land recorded in the name of Bigu Mahali, Ganesh Mahali and Chamru Mahali son of Sukra Mahali and Charwa Mahali, Budhuwa Mahali and Tapia Mahali sons of Radhiya Mahali. This property has been obtained by them in partition. Thus, the fact of partition has also been admitted by defendant no. 2 to 5 in the contents of Ext.-E. 18. It is also admitted by Ext.-4 produced on behalf of the plaintiffs that the land under khata no. 75 plot no. 553 area 30 decimals has been mutated in the name of defendant no. 6 and though mutation does not create any title but it gives presumption of possession in favour of person against whom the same has been issued. Thus, I find that the sale deed executed by the defendant no.1 (Since Diseased) in favour of defendant no. 6 after obtaining permission from the concerned competent authority, which is clear from Ext.-3, is a valid and lawful transaction which has been full acted upon.” 14. The learned 1st appellate court has also considered the materials on record and has come to concurrent finding and held that after due partition, defendant no. 1 had sold his share to defendant no. 6. 15. This Court finds that both the learned courts have considered the materials on record and arrived at concurrent findings. The learned counsel for the appellants has failed to indicate any perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidences on record by the learned courts. This Court finds no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. 2026:JHHC:824 7 16. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 17. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 13.01.2026 Mukul/- Uploaded On: 20.02.2026