2026:JHHC:11429 --1-- W.P. (C.) No. 5004 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI W.P. (C.) No. 5004 of 2012 ---- 1A. Sunil Rai, aged about 34 years, S/o Late Phulchand Rai, resident of village – Basuwa, PO – Mohanpur, PS – Mahagama, District – Godda, Jharkhand PIN – 814154 1B. Pachia Devi, aged about 71 years, W/o Late Phulchand Rai, resident of village – Basuwa, PO – Mohanpur, PS – Mahagama, District – Godda, Jharkhand PIN – 814154 1C. Munni Devi, aged about 60 years, daughter of Late Phulchand Rai and wife of Hiraman Singh, resident of village – Basmori, PO – Barabanjhi, Kharkachi, PS – Poriahat, District – Godda, Jharkhand, PIN – 814153 1D. Sarswati Devi, aged about 29 years, Daughter of Late Phulchand Rai and wife of Mahendra Rai, resident of village – Vishal Sahubasa, Piyalapur, PO – Sarkanda, PS – Ishipur, Barahat, District – Bhagalpur, Bihar, PIN – 813209 1E. Sarita Kumari, aged about 34 years, daughter of Late Phulchand Rai, resident of village – Basuwa, PO – Mohanpur, PS – Mahagama, District – Godda, Jharkhand, PIN – 814154 1F. Rita Devi, aged about 33 years, daughter of Late Phulchand Rai and wife of Pankaj Rai, resident of village – Phulwaria Aikchari, PO – Baijnathpur, PS – Sanhokar, District – Bhagalpur, Bihar, PIN – 813204 1G. Sita Devi, aged about 20 years, daughter of Late Phulchand Rai, and wife of Arvind Kumar Rai, resident of village – Mahuwatand, PO – Ghatiyari, PS – Sundapahari, District – Godda, Jharkhand, PIN – 814158 2. Shanker Rai, son of Rati Rai and Kulsi Devi and Grand Son of Roshini Devi and Lallu Rai 3. Shambhu Rai, son of Rati Rai and Kulsi Devi and Grand son of Roshini Devi and Lallu Rai 4. Birbal Rai, son of Rati Rai and Kulsi Devi and Grand son of 2026:JHHC:11429 --2-- W.P. (C.) No. 5004 of 2012 Roshini Devi and Lallu Rai 5. Veena Devi, wife of Gulabi Rai and daughter of Late Singhu Rai and Grand Daughter of Late Moti Rai and great grand daughter of Roshini Devi and Lallu Rai, All are resident of Gram – Basua, PO – Basua, PS – Mahagama, District - Godda .... Petitioners -- Versus -- 1. Debli Devi, daughter of sole plaintiff-Late Sugia Devi, grand daughter of Tetar Rai, wife of Sri Guru Prasaid Rai, resident of village – Aajamganj, PO – Katihar, PS – Katihar, District – Katihar, Bihar and at present R/o ; C/o Sri Guru Prasad Rai, Gram – Tarwara, PO – Godda, PS – Godda, District – Godda 2. Toofani Rai, son of Late Bhulia Devi and Jahlu Rai, grand son of Roshini Devi and Lalu Rai, resident of Gram ; Basua, PO – Basua, PS – Mahagama, District – Godda 3. Kedar Rai, son of Late Latan Rai, resident of Gram – Basua, PO – Basua, PS – Mahagama, District – Godda 4. Narain Rai, son of Late Latan Rai, resident of Gram – Basua, PO – Basua, PS – Mahagama, District – Godda .... Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate For Respondent No.1 :- Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate :- Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate For Respondent No.2 :- Mr. Jyoti Pd. Sinha, Advocate ---- 11/20.042026 Heard Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Jyoti Pd. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. Notices upon respondent Nos.3 and 4 has already been 2026:JHHC:11429 --3-- W.P. (C.) No. 5004 of 2012 effected, however, nobody has appeared on behalf of them and in view of that in absence of respondent Nos.3 and 4 the present writ petition has been called. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 25.05.2012 passed in Second Appeal No.92 of 2006 by learned Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka and also for quashing of the impugned order dated 22.11.2006 passed in Title Appeal No.03 of 1988 by learned In-charge Officer-Settlement, Dumka whereby the judgment dated 19.12.1987 passed in Title Partition Suit No.40 of 1981 by Assistant Settlement Officer, Godda has been set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Bandhu Rai and one of his son Niru Rai died prior to the Survey Operation in that area and as such the property is recorded in the name of Gutu Rai (Son of Bandhu Rai) and in the name of sons of Niru Rai on separate column of possession. Gutu Rai had two sons (Banwari Rai and Gado Rai) and three daughters (Roshini Devi, Sofia Devi and Rukni Devi). Gado Rai died issuless. Rukni Devi pre-deceased Gutu Rai, whereas Sofia Devi left the family for her good and married a man of another caste during the life time of her father-Gutu Rai. Banwari Rai died issueless in the year 1934-35 and also pre-deceased his father Gutu Rai. He had no daughter namely Sugia Devi who is an imposter and has been set up by Hari Rai to lay false claim over the Suit Property. Till date the Petitioners herein are in possession of the 2026:JHHC:11429 --4-- W.P. (C.) No. 5004 of 2012 Suit Property. After the death of Banwari Rai in the year 1934-35, his widow left her husband's house and married Tetar Rai of Village: Ajibganj (@ Ajampur @ Aajamganj), Police Station: Katihar, District: - Purnia [now District: Katihar]. Sugia Devi is daughter of Tetar Rai and is not the daughter of Banwari Rai. It is a fact that Gutu Rai died in the year 1958. Roshini Devi along with her husband and children lived in the house of her father till her death and now the contesting Defendants [Petitioners herein] are living in the same house in Mouza: Basua. Thus, the property in question was inherited by Roshini Devi upon death of Banwari Rai issueless in the year 1934-35 and upon remarriage of her widow with Tetar Rai and after death of Gado Rai issueless and also after the death of Gutu Rai in the year 1958 and after leaving house by Sofia Devi. Thus, the entire property was in exclusive possession of Roshini Devi and after her death it is in the possession of the contesting Defendant [Petitioners herein]. The Plaint of Sugia Devi is full of contradiction and incorrect facts have been stated therein because she had no knowledge about the family of Banwari Rai. Sugia Devi is an imposter and has been set up by Hari Rai to lay false claim over the Suit Property. 5. He further submits that the property inherited by Gutu Rai is the subject matter of the Title Partition Suit No.40 of 1981 which has been morefully described as Schedule-A of the Plaint filed by Sole Plaintiff-Sugia Devi for partition of the same in the learned Court of ASO, Godda. During the pendency of the said Title Suit, Sugia Devi 2026:JHHC:11429 --5-- W.P. (C.) No. 5004 of 2012 [daughter of Tetar Rai of Purnia, now Katihar] died and was substituted by Debli Devi. 6. He then submits that in the Title Partition Suit No.40 of 1981 the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 appeared and filed a composite Written Statement, whereas Defendant No.5 [Lutan Rai] filed a separate Written Statement but he did not contested the Title Partition Suit rather he tried to support the case of the Plaintiff on the dictate of Hari Rai who had been maneuvering the said Title Partition Suit and Title Appeals and as such the Written Statement of Lutan Rai was not believed by the learned Trial Court and also his claim over the property in question was not allowed, as his evidence did not support his pleadings in the said separate Written Statement. 7. He next submits that on contest and in accordance to the provision as contained in Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the learned Trial Court of Assistant Settlement Officer, Godda dismissed the Title Partition Suit No.40 of 1981 vide Judgment dated 15.12.1987 [Decree sealed and signed on 19.12.1987] on appreciation of the evidences of the witnesses. 8. He also submits that being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 15.12.1987 [Decree sealed and signed on 19.12.1987] passed in Title Partition Suit No.40 of 1981, the Substituted Plaintiff-Debli Devi filed Title Appeal No.03 of 1988. In this Title Appeal the Defendants [Petitioners herein] appeared and filed Written Argument, however an Ex-parte hearing was done and the Written Argument filed by the 2026:JHHC:11429 --6-- W.P. (C.) No. 5004 of 2012 Defendant [Petitioners herein] was not considered by the Learned Court of In-Charge Officer-Settlement, Dumka and without considering the proper findings given by the Trial Court and without assigning any reason for differing with the findings of the Trial Court and in cryptic manner without application of judicial mind and against the provision of Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has allowed the Title Appeal No.03 of 1988 vide Order dated 22.11.2006. 9. He next submits that being aggrieved by the Order dated 22.11.2006 passed in Title Appeal No.03 of 1988 the Defendant [Petitioners herein] filed Second Appeal No.92 of 2006. The said Second Appeal has been rejected vide Order dated 25.05.2012 by Learned Commissioner, Dumka which is full of error of record and the same has been passed without application of judicial mind and in a most mechanical manner. It has been observed that the Learned Court of ASO has failed to consider the evidence of Banwari Rai, which is an apparent error of record since Banwari Rai has died in the year 1934- 35, i.e. prior to the institution of the Title Partition Suit No.40 of 1981. Further the Learned Commissioner has come to a wrong finding that Debli Devi is the legal heir of recorded tenant-Ghattu Rai. Further it has been wrongly held that Ghattu Rai died leaving behind two sons [Banwari Rai & Gado Rai] and three daughters [Sugia Devi and Runki Devi]. In fact, Sugia Devi is daughter of Tetar Rai. Further the finding of the Learned Commissioner that the First Appellate Court has considered the findings of the Learned Trial Court is also an error of 2026:JHHC:11429 --7-- W.P. (C.) No. 5004 of 2012 record. Thus, the entire recording of the Learned Commissioner in the impugned Order dated 25.05.2012 is based on error of record and is perverse and thus is fit to be set aside in the interest of justice and for the ends of justice. 10. Mr. Lala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders passed by the learned appellate courts are contrary to the provisions of Section 50 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and other provisions of law and in view of that impugned orders may kindly be set aside. He further submits that learned first appellate court has not discussed the evidence on behalf of the petitioners and only discussing the two three witnesses of respondent No.1 has decided the appeal. He then submits that even learned second appellate court has not given any independent finding and has only dismissed the appeal saying that the evidences have been reduced by learned first appellate court. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 11. Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 tried to justify the impugned orders and submits that after appreciating the evidence laid by the respondent No.1 the first appellate authority has decided the appeal which has been affirmed by learned second appellate court. 12. On query made by the Court, Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 fairly submits that learned 2026:JHHC:11429 --8-- W.P. (C.) No. 5004 of 2012 first appellate court as well as second appellate court has not considered the evidence laid by the petitioners herein. 13. Mr. Jyoti Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that he is supporting the case of petitioners. 14. The Court has perused the impugned orders of learned first appellate court as well as second appellate court and finds that the evidence of the petitioners herein has not been discussed by learned first appellate court and the second appellate court and has dismissed the second appeal only saying that learned first appellate court has discussed the evidence and has not given any independent finding in deciding the second appeal and the said order is not a reasoned order. 15. Judgment of first appellate court must reflect conscious application of mind and reasons must be assigned for recording of any findings. Reference may be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shasidhar and Others vs. Ashwini Uma Mathad and Another reported in (2015) 11 SCC 269. The evidence of petitioners has not been discussed by the learned first appellate court. 16. In view of the above and considering that learned second appellate court order is not based on applying the judicial mind and in view of that it will not sustain in the eye of law, as such the order dated 22.11.2006 passed in Title Appeal No.03 of 1988 and order 2026:JHHC:11429 --9-- W.P. (C.) No. 5004 of 2012 passed in Second Appeal No.92 of 2006 by learned Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka are hereby set aside. 17. The first appeal is restored to the file of Settlement Officer, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, who will decide the said appeal afresh after providing both the sides opportunities and considering the materials on record in accordance with law. 18. This writ petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of. 19. Let the trial court record be sent back to the learned Court concerned forthwith. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 20.04.2026 Sangam/