( 2026:JHHC:1800 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 196 of 2025 Kashi Sao, son of Bandhan Sao, aged about 75 years, resident of village Mandudih, P.O. and P.S. Mandu, District Ramgarh … … Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant Versus 1. Dilni Devi, wife of Late Prayag Sao. 2. Ghanshyam Sao, son of Late Prayag Sao, 3. Yugesh Sao, son of Late Prayag Sao. 4. Laloo Sao, son of Late Prayag Sao. 5. Girdhari Sao, son of Late Prayag Sao. 6. Bijendra Sao, son of Late Prayag Sao Respondent nos. 1 to 6 are residents of Village Mandudih, P.O. & P.S. Mandu, District Ramgarh. 7. Punam Devi, wife of Lakhan Sao, daughter of Late Prayag Sao. 8. Rekha Devi, wife of Ranjeet Sao, daughter of Late Prayag Sao. Respondent nos. 7 and 8 are residents of Village Bagodar, P.O. & P.S. Bagodar, District Giridih. 9. Dhaneshwar Sao @ Degan Sao, son of Late Bandhan Sao. 10. Shiblal Sao, son of Late Bandhan Sao. Respondent nos. 9 and 10 are residents of Village Mandudih, P.O. and P.S. Mandu, District Ramgarh … … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate : Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate --- 07/14.01.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 27.09.2024 (decree signed on 08.10.2024) passed by learned District Judge, Ramgarh in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2023 whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed. 3. The Trial Court’s judgment is dated 29.03.2023 (decree signed on 10.04.2023) passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-VI, Ramgarh in Original Suit No. 78 of 2012 whereby the suit seeking partition of Schedule-II property has been dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the property was not self-acquired property of Prayag Sao, rather it was the property purchased by Bandhan Sao in the name of Prayag Sao. Bandhan Sao was the elder brother and therefore the learned courts have erred in holding that the property was self-acquired property of ( 2026:JHHC:1800 ) 2 Prayag Sao/ Prayag Mahto. The learned counsel has submitted that Exhibit-3 and Exhibit-4 i.e. the punchnama dated 19.04.1979 and faisla dated 22.04.1979 have not been properly considered by the learned courts and therefore a substantial question of law be framed. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the impugned judgment, this court finds that the plaintiff had filed the Title Suit against Prayag Sao and others for claiming 1/4th share in schedule-II property which is standing in the name of Prayag Sao. 6. It was the case of the plaintiff that Bandhan Sao, father of the parties was having different properties inherited by succession and other acquired through purchase by his own earning. Bandhan Sao had purchased the suit property in the name of his elder son Prayag Sao and therefore Prayag Sao had no independent right over the land. In his life time, Bandhan Sao had partitioned both the ancestral and purchased property in four equal shares amongst his son in presence of punches and all the sons had accepted the partition and signed on punchnama dated 22.04.1979 and all the punches and parties including Bandhan Sao and his four sons were present at that time and just after partition, Bandhan Sao had directed his sons to carry out separate cultivation according to their share and thereafter they have been separately cultivating their land. Bandhan Sao expired in the year 1989. 7. The case of the plaintiff was that defendants continued cultivation work of the land of Schedule-II in equal share peacefully till June, 2011. However, defendant no. 1 and his family members started disturbing the share of the parties in the land which was acquired by Bandhan Sao by purchase and consequently proceeding under section 144 Cr. PC was instituted. It was the further case that parties had other ancestral land in another village and they have houses over their respective partitioned share but in respect of land of schedule-II, the defendant no. 1 and his family members had started creating problem. It was also asserted that the punchanama was signed by all concerned including Prayag Sao and it was accepted and acted ( 2026:JHHC:1800 ) 3 upon by all the parties. The ancestral property having been partitioned long ago, therefore only the schedule-II property was the subject matter of partition and the plaintiff claimed 1/4th share. 8. The defendant no. 1 appeared and contested the suit asserting that there was no unity of title and possession over any portion of the suit property and also asserted that the plaintiff had no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land which was in exclusive possession of the defendant no. 1. It was false to say that the property was acquired by Bandhan Sao in the name of Prayag Sao. It was also asserted that Prayag Sao has also got the property mutated in his name and had also paid up to date rent. He denied that Panchayati was held and also asserted that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant nos. 2 and 3 ever came in possession of the suit land of the property purchased by the defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 1 also asserted that he had also sold a portion of the property vide registered sale deed in the year 1972 and the purchaser had got his name mutated after claiming the rent receipt. After the death of defendant no. 1 his legal heirs were substituted. 9. The learned trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:- “ (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Whether the suit is barred by Specific Relief Act? (iv) Whether there is unity of title and possession between the parties to the suit? (v) Whether the suit is hit by principle of estoppel, acquiescence and waiver? (vi) Whether the court fee paid in insufficient? (vii) Whether the suit suffers from vagueness due to mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? (viii) Whether the plaintiff has right, title, interest and possession over the suit land? (ix) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of 1/4th share in the suit property described in Schedule-II of the plaint? ( 2026:JHHC:1800 ) 4 (x) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief as claimed for any other relief?” 10. The learned Trial Court after considering the materials on record including exhibit-3 and exhibit-4 held that the property was the self-acquired property of Prayag Sao who was an employee of CCL and also held that there was no material to show that the suit property was purchased by Bandhan Sao in the name of his son Prayag Sao. The learned trial court dismissed the suit seeking partition. 11. This court finds that the learned trial court has considered the materials on record threadbare including Exhibit-3 and 4 and has also recorded that there was no evidence on record to show and prove the income of Bandhan Sao who is alleged to have purchased the property in the name of his elder son Prayag Sao and Prayag Sao was admittedly an employee of CCL. 12. The learned 1st appellate court has framed the following point for determination. “ (i) Is there any unity of title and possession between the parties and whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of ¼ share of the suit property? (ii) Has the learned trial court passed the judgment and decree in original suit No. 78 of 2012 as per facts and law involved in this case? 13. The learned 1st appellate court has given concurrent findings after considering all the materials on record including exhibit-3 and exhibit-4 and ultimately held that there was no unity of title and possession with respect to the suit property. The extracts of the findings of the learned 1st appellate court are quoted as under:- 21. “Having gone through the evidences brought on behalf of both the sides, I find that sale deed of the disputed land is in the name of Prayag Sao is admitted. The dispute in between the parties is that, Plaintiff's case is that Bandhan Sao has purchased the disputed land from his own earning in the name of his elder son Prayag Mahto. The plaintiff is claiming his 1/4th in the suit land on the basis of above fact. Defendants have denied the same and pleaded in their W.S that the disputed land was purchased by Prayag Sao ( 2026:JHHC:1800 ) 5 from his own earning as he was an employee of the C.C.L. Plaintiff as well the defendant nos.1 to 1/f have filed certified copy of sale deed nos. 10220 and 10221, Exhibit- 1 and 1/A on behalf for the plaintiff and Exhibit-A and A/1 on behalf of defendant no 1, executed in favour of Prayag Sao, without any objection. Whether disputed land was purchased by Bandhan Sao in the name of his elder son Prayag Sao from his own earning or not is to be decided first….. 22. This plea is taken by the plaintiff hence it is plaintiff, who has the burden to prove this fact. The plaintiff has filed Ext-3 and Ext-4, which are punchnama of dated 19.04.1979 and faisla of dated 22.04.1979 to prove that there was a previous partition of ancestral and purchased land in between his all four brothers and father. He also wants to prove that, the disputed land was purchased by his father Bandhan Sao in the name of Prayag Sao from his own earning and the said land was also included and partitioned amongst his four brothers through the alleged punchnama and faisla dated 19.04.1979 and 22.04.1979. From perusal of the Ext-3 and Ext-4 it appears that, the aforesaid documents are of family settlement. Through Punchnama (Ext-3) Prayag Sao, Kashi Sao @ Sundar Sao, Dhaneshwar Sao @ Degan Sao and Shivlal Sao had requested the punches for partition of their land into four shares. There are names of punches and signatures of Prayag Sao, Kashi Sao @ Sundar Sao, Dhaneshwar Sao and Shivlal Sao, along with the thumb impression of their father Bandhan Sao. This document has been proved by the PW-4 Kashi Sao @ Sundar Sao as he is only one alive party of the alleged punchnama. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff during the course of his argument draw attention in para 2 of the said exhibit, which is the statement of the Prayag Sao. On perusal of the same I find that, he has stated that, there is no title of his three brothers in Harraiya's Land. Prayag Sao has also stated that it is his purchased land and no one will get it. Ext-4, is order of punches, wherein it mentioned that Harraiya khet is in the name of Prayag Sao and he denied to give share, because it is in his name and his father and brother did not gave him his Jeth Hissa. On the other hand his father Bandhan Sao has stated that, it is his self acquired land and should be divided equally amongst his four sons. ( 2026:JHHC:1800 ) 6 There is no description of the disputed land in both the exhibits. But during the argument Id. counsel has stated that the disputed land is also known as Harraiya Khet and Mushan wala ghar-bari. However none of the plaintiff's witnesses have supported the fact that, the disputed land are also known as Harraiya Khet and Mushan wala ghar-bari. No other document has been produced by the plaintiff to prove this fact, nor it is mentioned in his pleading. There are no signature of any parties on Ext-4. Plaintiff (PW-4) has admitted that disputed land is not described in punchnama and faisla. Rather it has been written vaguely. The case of the Plaintiff is that just after the aforesaid partition all the parties started separate cultivation under the guidance of their father even after his death in 1989. But in support of this plea no document, save and except Ext-3 and Ext-4, has been produced by the plaintiff, which could show his possession over the suit land. Plaintiff has admitted that they are not separately mutated according to the punchnama. Plaintiff has not produced any evidence to show common village tradition and custom to purchase land in the name of elder son, nor any witness has supported this fact. So, I find that Ext-3 and 4 does not confer any right and title to the plaintiff on the suit land. 23……………Plaintiff failed to produce any document to show that Bandhan Sao has purchased the land from his own earning. It is admitted fact that Prayag Sao was employee in C.C.L. It also appears from the testimony of PW-3 as well the PW-4 plaintiff of this case that, plaintiff was also an employee in C.C.L and he also purchased some land in the name of his wife. PW-3 who is the brother-in-law of plaintiff and defendants has admitted that he has knowledge that one sale deed was executed in between Sohan Sao and Prayag Sao. He has also stated that his two brother in-laws Prayag Sao and the plaintiff Kashi Sao were in job and had good income. There is no evidence on record to show income of Bandhan Sao and that the suit land was purchased by him from his own earning in the name of his elder son Prayag Sao.” 14. There are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts that the suit property was the self-acquired property of Prayag Sao and was ( 2026:JHHC:1800 ) 7 not purchased by his father Bandhan Sao in the name of Prayag Sao. The courts have also recorded that there is no evidence to show that Bandhan Sao had purchased the property in the name of his son. 15. This court finds that the concurrent findings have been recorded taking into consideration all the materials, both oral and documentary, including exhibit-3 and 4. No perversity as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the matter of appreciation of evidences. The fact remains that admittedly the suit property is standing in the name of Prayag Sao who was an employee of CCL and the property also stands mutated in his name and there is no material to show that the suit property was purchased by his father in his name. Accordingly, there is no question of law, much less any substantial question of law involved in this case. Accordingly, this 2nd appeal is dismissed. 16. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 17. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 14/01/2026 Uploaded on :21.02.2026 Binit