2026:JHHC:16865 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 382 of 2015 ------ 1. Ram Sewak Sahu 2. Dileswar Sahu 3. Dev Karan Sahu 4. Raghunath Sahu All sons of Late Bandu Sahu, resident of Village Konmerla, P.O. and P.S. Jaldega, District Simdega .... .... …. Appellants Versus 1. Francis Kandulna, son of Late Soma Kandulna, resident of Village Konmerla, P.O. and P.S. Simdega, District Simdega 2. Saraswati Devi, wife of Late Lohra Jena 3. Amica Kumari, daughter of Late Lohra Jena 4. Bhanumati Kumari, daughter of Late Lohra Jena 5. Madan Mohan, son of Late Lohra Jena 6. Kaushalya Devi, daughter of Late Lohra Jena 7. Danti Devi, daughter of Late Lohra Jena 8. Lilo Devi, daughter of Late Lohra Jena All resident of Village Konmerla, P.O. and P.S. Jaldega, District Simdega 9. Rampati Devi, wife of Late Brishbhan Singh, resident of Village Jokbahar, P.O. and P.S. Simdega, District Simdega 10. DCLR, Simdega, P.O. and P.S. Simdega, District Simdega 11. Circle Officer, Jaldega, P.O. and P.S. Jaldega, District Simdega 12. D.C., Simdega, P.O. and P.S. Simdega, District Simdega .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Appellants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondents : ------ 09/10.06.2026 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2015 (decree signed on 30.04.2015) passed by learned District Judge, Simdega passed in Title Appeal No.04/2010 whereby the learned appellate court has been pleased to dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court dated 26.07.2010 and 09.08.2010 respectively passed in Title Suit No.04/2001. 3. Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the plaintiff/respondents preferred Title Suit 2026:JHHC:16865 2 No.4/2001 which was decided by the judgment dated 29.09.2004 and by the said judgment, the said title suit was dismissed. Pursuant to that plaintiff/respondents preferred the Title Appeal No.10 of 2004 which was allowed by the judgement dated 07.08.2008 setting aside the judgment of the learned trial court in Title Suit No.4/2001 and remanded the matter to the learned trial court to decide afresh and pursuant to that Title Suit No.04 of 2001 was provided the same number and further decided by the judgment dated 26.07.2010 by which the suit was partly decreed and partly dismissed on contest against defendant nos.1 to 7, 9(a), 9(d), 9(e) and 10 and ex-parte against defendant nos.9(b), 9(c), 9(f) and 9(g) with cost and declared the Sale Deed Nos.2320, 2321 and 2322 all dated 06.10.1998 are not binding upon the plaintiff to the extent they are in excess to the share of Lohra Jena. 4. Aggrieved with the said judgment dated 26.07.2010 passed by learned Sub Judge-I, Simdega, the appellants as well as the respondents both have preferred the appeal before the learned District Judge, Simdega which was numbered as Title Appeal No.04/2010 and Title Appeal No.07/2010 respectively which was decided by the judgment dated 16.04.2015 affirming the judgment of the learned trial court dated 26.07.2010. The defendants filed M.A. No.292/2008 before the High Court which was dismissed by the order dated 09.04.2009 and in this background, Title Suit No.04/2001 was again heard and decided by the learned trial court by the judgment dated 26.07.2010. 5. It transpires from the judgment of trial court that plaintiffs/respondents case was that one Ratan Jena had landed property at village Konmenjra, P.S. Jaldega, District Simdega under Khata No. 179, Plot No. 2386 having an area of 2.61 acres, who died leaving behind his only son Abhi Jena. The aforesaid property was ultimately succeeded by Sukru Jena, who has one son Lohra Jena and one daughter Rampati Devi. It is alleged that aforesaid land was being cultivated by plaintiff in 'Sajha' with Sukru Jena from 1990 and continued to be so. It is further alleged that Sukru Jena, Lohra Jena and Rampati Devi transferred the land of Plot No. 2386 measuring an area of 2.61 acres under Khata No. 179 in favour of plaintiff after receiving the proper consideration money by virtue of 2026:JHHC:16865 3 different sale deed bearing No. 67 and 69 dated 15.01.1999, 127 and 128 dated 21.01.1999 which land is now suit land. Since plaintiff was already in possession of suit property being 'Sajhait of Sukru Jena and others, he acquired the perfect right, title and interest in it on its transfer in his favour by virtue of aforesaid deeds. The plaintiff started the proceeding before Circle Officer, Jaldega for mutation of his name in revenue record in respect of the suit property, but the same was disposed of by Circle Officer, Jaldega without holding any enquiry in regard with possession of the suit property. The Circle Officer, Jaldega did not stop only on this point rather he opened the revenue record in the name of Def. Nos. 1 to 4 by passing mutation order in their favour in Mutation Case Nos. 6/99-2000, 7/99-2000 & 8/99-2000 while the defendants were not in possession of the suit property even for a single day and the orders were passed without holding any enquiry in regard with possession. The learned Circle Officer allowed the mutation of names of Def. Nos. 1 to 4 on the basis of sale deeds which were executed in their favour in respect of suit property by Lohra Jena alone without any partition of suit property in between him and his father and during life time of his father. The plaintiff preferred Mutation appeal before D.C.L.R., Simdega which was also disposed of by the learned D.C.L.R., Simdega without going into the merit of the case and passed orders on the basis of order of Circle Officer, Jaldega. Thereafter, the plaintiff enquired about the sale deeds executed by Lohra Jena in favour of Def. Nos. 1 to 4 and came to know that they have been cancelled vide cancellation deed Nos. 2839, 2840 & 2841 dated 24.12.1998 on the basis of non-payment of consideration money as the parties did not pay the consideration amount to the transferor in spite of giving assurance in this regard. It is further case of the plaintiff that he all along remained in possession of suit property since 1990 when he was first introduced as 'Sajhait’ and his possession was never disturbed, but the Def. Nos. 1 to 4 got suit property transfer from one Lohra Jena without partition in between him and his father. The sale deeds executed in favour of Def. Nos. 1 to 4 have been executed by a person having no authority to transfer the said property and without payment of consideration money. Hence, necessity of the suit arose. 2026:JHHC:16865 4 6. Pursuant to the notice, the defendants appeared before the learned trial court and contested the suit by way of filing six separate sets of written statement. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 were the main contesting defendants and they have stated in their written statement to dismiss the suit with cost on the grounds inter alia that the suit as framed is not maintainable, that there is no cause of action for the suit, that the suit is barred by law of limitation, that the suit is hit by the provision of Specific Relief Act, that the suit is barred by law of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence. These defendants have made out a case that Ratan Jena had landed property in Khata No. 104, area 15.23 acres, Khata No. 105, area 3.72 acres and Khata No. 179, area 3.09 acres in village Konmerla and this whole property was inherited by Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena after the death of Ratan Jena. Since Sukru Jena was weak and suffering from lunatic attacks, he was looked after by his son Lohra Jena, who was the Karta of the family and managing all affairs of the family. Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena partitioned their land of aforesaid three Khatas in which land under Plot No. 2386 with some more land was given in the share of Lohra Jena and accordingly, he became the absolute owner of the property falling in his share which was subsequently mortgaged by him on several occasions. Lohra Jena transferred the suit property in favour of Def. Nos. 1 to 4 in capacity of absolute owner and he also granted a receipt on stamp paper which evidenced the payment of whole consideration money. These defendants got their name mutated in respect of suit property under the orders of Circle Officer, Jaldega vide Mutation Case Nos. 6, 7, 8 of 1999-2000 against which an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff before D.C.L.R., Simdega, who confirmed the order of Circle Officer, Jaldega after having enquiry in respect of possession over suit property. It is further pleaded that Lohra Jena has also sold Plot No. 337 of Khata No. 104 in the year 1982 in favour of Chhateshwar Mahto and Plot No. 2392 of Khata No. 104 in favour of Keshmati Devi and Plot No. 186 of Khata No. 105 in favour of Aghan Gond from the property allotted to his share and the transferees are in possession of the sold land. The sale deed executed in favour of defendants by Lohra Jena have been witnessed by Rampati Devi, the sister of executant. It is further pleaded that plaintiff has 2026:JHHC:16865 5 fraudulently obtained the registered sale-deed allegedly executed by Def. Nos. 8, 9 & 10 and these sale deeds are illegal and fake. The cancellation done by Lohra Jena have got no legal value. The plaintiff got the suit property transferred in his favour knowing fully well that suit was already transferred by Lohra Jena in favour of defendants and thus the plaintiff has neither title nor possession over the suit property and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 7. The Defendant Nos. 5, 6 & 7 have also contested the suit by filing written statement praying there to dismiss the suit on the ground that the suit is not maintainable and plaintiff has got no cause of action. It is pleaded that plaintiff had not filed any mutation case before the Circle Officer, Jaldega and thus, he has falsely stated that Circle Officer, Jaldega did not mutate his name in revenue records. The plaintiff had filed objection petition in the Mutation Case Nos. 6, 7, 8 of 1999-2000 which were filed by Def. Nos. 1 to 4 for mutating their names in respect of the suit property and the order was passed by the Circle Officer, Jaldega after holding due enquiry in regard with possession of suit property. The Circle Officer, Jaldega, before passing any order, noticed the villagers and parties and held spot enquiry and passed orders as per provisions of law. Similarly, the allegation of plaintiff that D.C.L.R., Simdega passed the orders without going into the merit of the case are false as Def. No. 6 also passed orders in view of the merit of the case. On these grounds, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 8. The Defendant Nos. 9 (a) and 9 (d) have also filed a written statement through which they pleaded their no objection regarding transfer made by Lohra Jena in favour of Def. Nos. 1 to 4. It is alleged that Lohra Jena transferred the suit property in favour of Def. Nos. 1 to 4 as it was allotted to him in partition with his father. 9. The Defendant No. 9 (e) has also filed her written statement alleging therein that plaintiff was allowed to do cultivation work over suit property and it was never partitioned among Sukru Jena, his son and his daughter. It is alleged that Def. Nos. 1 to 4 have got the sale deed executed by administering fraud upon Lohra Jena and without making payment of consideration money to him and thus, the Def. Nos. 1 to 4 2026:JHHC:16865 6 have got no concern with the suit property. The Def. Nos. 1 to 4 got the sale deed executed in the pretext of executing the mortgage deed and without any making payment. Hence, the sale deed were subsequently cancelled by Lohra Jena and Def. Nos. 1 to 4 never came in possession and the plaintiff has perfected his right, title and interest over the suit property after getting the same transferred in his favour. 10. The Defendant No. 10 has also contested the suit by filing a written statement with the allegation that plaintiff was introduced over suit property as 'Sajhait' and the same was subsequently transferred in his favour. The Def. Nos. 1 to 4 have got no concerned with the suit property as they got the sale deed executed in their favour by exercising fraud on Lohra Jena and without making payment of consideration money this was the reason for cancelling the sale deed. 11. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned trial court has framed 12 issues including 03 issues settled by the learned appellate court in the judgment by which the said suit has been remanded and decide afresh and decided the suit by the judgment dated 26.07.2010. Against the said judgment, both sides (plaintiffs and defendants) preferred title appeal which was further dismissed by the appellate court by the judgment dated 16.04.2015. 12. Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that both the learned courts have erred in law in deciding the lis without appreciating the correct position on facts and law. He further submits that memorandum of partition (Exhibit A) between Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena is valid legal and binding against their respective heirs as well as respondents/plaintiffs and these issues have not been decided in its right perspective as such these are the law points to admit this second appeal by this court. He relied the case of Bakhtawar Singh Vs. Gurdev Singh & Another reported in (1996) 9 SCC 370 and in the case of K. N. Nagarajappa & Others Vs. H. Narasimha Reddy reported in 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 490. On these grounds, he submits that the second appeal may kindly be admitted. 13. Learned trial court has taken up the Issue Nos.7 and 8 first which were related whether the executed registered sale deeds in favour of the 2026:JHHC:16865 7 defendants for the suit land are fit to be declared forged, null and void and whether the suit land can be decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The learned trial court found that the fact is admitted that Ratan Jena was recorded tenant in the Khatiyan of revisional survey of 1930-32 with regard to suit property. Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena inherited and succeeded the whole suit property after the death of Ratan Jena. Lohra Jena executed registered Sale Deed Nos.2320, 2321 and 2322, all dated 06.10.1998 in favour of defendant nos.1 to 4 in respect of the suit property. Circle Officer, Jaldega passed mutation orders regarding suit property in favour of defendant nos.1 to 4 which was subsequently confirmed by D.C.L.R., Simdega. These are admitted facts of the parties. 14. The contention before the learned court was made by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants herein that the first appellate court has remanded the matter to decide only three issues and in view of that only three issues were required to be answered. However, after hearing both the parties, learned trial court has found that the earlier judgment and decree of the trial court has already been set aside and the matter has been remanded back and in view of that the learned court has found all issues are required to be decided afresh and as such the learned court has further decided the issue and proceeded further. Learned court has found that defendant nos.1 to 4 had contended that there was a partition in between Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena in respect of suit property and some other lands and the suit property was allotted in favour of defendant no.9 i.e. Lohra Jena, who transferred the suit property in favour of defendant nos.1 to 4 in capacity of absolute and exclusive owner while the plaintiffs’ case is that there was no partition in between Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena and sale deeds executed in favour of defendants were subsequently cancelled owing to non-payment of consideration money. It was contended by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants herein before the learned trial court that there were partition in between Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena in the year 1977 of which memorandum of partition was prepared and Lohra Jena was allotted the suit property along with some other property in the alleged partition and accordingly, he became the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property in the year 1977 2026:JHHC:16865 8 and in view of that by virtue of Sale Deed Nos.2320, 2321, 2322, all dated 06.10.1988 he has sold the property to the defendants. Learned court has found that admittedly, the suit property was inherited by Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena from their ancestors and it was ancestral property. The plaintiff’s plea is that there was no partition in between Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena while defendant nos.1 to 4 have pleaded that there was such partition. Exhibit A was considered by the learned court which was said to be memorandum of partition. Argument has been advanced before the learned court that the said memorandum was not registered and in view of that sale deed is not valid. Learned court has considered the evidences of D.Ws and found that D.W. 1 in para 6 stated that father and son (Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena) had partitioned the whole landed property including the house in the year 1997 in regard with which a memorandum of partition was prepared. D.W. 2 has stated in para 3 of his evidence that there was a partition in between Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena. D.W. 3 has stated in para 4 of his evidence that he was told by Sukru Jena in regard with partition taking place between him and his son. D.W. 4 has also stated in para 2 that the partition took place in the year 1977. D.W. 5 has stated in para 2 of his evidence that on 15.04.1977 Sukru Jena called him and said that his son has solemnized inter cast marriage hence, he will make a partition before the Punches and requested him to prepare the memorandum of partition. He has also deposed that he prepared description of land at the request of Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena over which Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena put their L.T.I. In view of this evidence, the court found that the partition took place in the year 1977 of which document was prepared. D.W. 5 has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was asked by Sukru Jena to make partition of suit property on 15.04.1977 and thereafter, he prepared the same. In view of that learned court has found that the document was prepared on the day when the alleged partition took place and the said partition was marked as Exhibit A. Learned court has found that in Exhibit A, there is no mention of any partition took place in past in between Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena in regard with the said document was prepared on 15.04.1977. The partition deed was prepared on 15.04.1977 which was a registered document and 2026:JHHC:16865 9 in view of that it was observed by the learned court that defendant nos.1 to 4 has not succeeded in establishing the fact that there was a partition in between Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena and accordingly, the legal presumption in favour of jointness of family of Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena remains intact and un-rebutted. In this background, learned court has further found that undivided share in the joint property can be transferred by a coparcener and only embargo which has been put therein on the transferor is that he cannot hand over the possession to the vendee unless the property is partitioned. Learned court in this background has found that there is no legal barrier in passing of title in respect of undivided share in joint family property on transfer by a coparcener and the vendee became entitled to seek for partition to the extent of alienation made in their favour and thereafter, the learned court has held that Lohra Jena being one of the coparcener was competent to make a valid transfer to the extent of his share in favour of defendant nos.1 to 4 and title passed in the favour of vendees to that extent with right to them to seek for partition to get the possession. In view of that the learned court has held that Sale Deed Nos.2320, 2321, 2322, all dated 06.10.1988 were legal, valid and binding to the extent of share of Lohra Jena in the suit property and these sale deeds are void, ineffective to the extent they are in excess to the share of Lohra Jena in the suit property. In view of that decided the said issue in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Other issues have also been dealt by the learned trial court and learned court has pleased to partly decree and partly dismiss the suit on contest against defendant nos.1 to 7, 9(a), 9(d), 9(e) and 10 and ex- parte against defendant nos.9(b), 9(c), 9(f) and 9(g) with cost and declared the Sale Deed No.2320, 2321 and 2322 all dated 06.10.1998 are not binding upon the plaintiff to the extent that they are in excess to the share of Lohra Jena by the judgment dated 26.07.2010. 15. Aggrieved with the said judgment, the plaintiff as well as the defendant preferred Title Appeal No.04/2010 and Title Appeal No.07/2010 and the Title Appeals have been decided by one judgment by the learned District Judge, Simdega by the judgment dated 16th April, 2015. Learned appellate court has appreciated the documents as well as the oral 2026:JHHC:16865 10 evidence and framed the point to decide the appeal. Learned appellate court has found that the defendants Nos. 1 to 4/appellants in T.A. No. 04/2010 have pleaded that there is no cause of action for the suit and the suit is barred by the law of limitation and the suit is barred by the law of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence and suit is hit by the provisions of Specific Relief Act. That, the plaintiff or the defendant No. 8 Sukru Jena or the defendant No.10 Rampati Devi have not been in possession of the suit land within 12 years prior to the institution of the suit and Sukru Jena, defendant No.8 left all concerned with the suit land long ago after giving the suit land in partition to his son Lohra Jena, the defendant No.9. That, Ratan Jena had recorded Raiyat in last revisional survey in the year 1930- 32 and Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena inherited and succeeded the lands belonging to Ratan Jena and Sukru Jena became weak and sick and he was looked after by his only son Lohra Jena and said Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena partitioned their land of three Khatas bearing Nos. 104,105 and 179 and suit land Plot No. 2386 was given in the share of Lohra Jena and he was the absolute owner of the suit land and he had mortgaged several time the suit lands and said Lohra Jena the defendant No.9 by virtue of three registered sale deeds Nos. 2320/98, 2321/98 and 2322/98 dated 06.10.1998 alienated the whole plot No. 2386 in favour of four defendants on payment of full consideration amount and said defendant No.9 has granted a receipt on stamped paper for amount of consideration money for the sold land received on 06.10.1998 and the said defendant got mutated their names in the office of C.O., Jaldega and the plaintiff, aggrieved by said order appealed in the court of DCLR, Simdega who confirmed the order of C.O., Jaldega and these defendants are paying rent and getting rent receipts for the same and defendant No. 10 Rampati Devi is the witness in said registered sale deed for suit and executed by his brother namely Lohra Jena in favour of these defendants and the plaintiff has fraudulently obtained the registered sale deed allegedly executed by the defendant Nos.8, 9 and 10 for the suit land which are not genuine and are illegal and fake and the plaintiff has purchased a litigation and not the suit land and the suit is false, frivolous and fit to be dismissed. D.W 1 Dileshwar Sahu, D.W.2 Dev Charan Manjhi @ Dev Gond, 2026:JHHC:16865 11 D.W.3 Ram Sahu, D.W.4 Balram Das, D.W.5 Jai Mohan Ohdar and D.W.6 Lurku Sahu have supported this fact in the trial court. Therefore, from the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that the plaintiff is taking plea that there was no partition in between Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena while defendant Nos.1 to 4 have pleaded that there was partition and it is the settled view of law that there is legal presumption of jointness of Hindu family and any party alleging about partition is to prove the factum of partition and in this context the perusal of partition Memorandum dated 15.04.1977 (Ext-A) it transpired to the appellate court that although the same is a valid documents, but the said document is unregistered and the perusal of Ext-A further found by the appellate court that, it is not a memorandum of partition, but in fact it is a partition deed and as per Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, the partition deed is mandatorily required to be registered and as per said provision of the Indian Registration Act (Ext-A) is of no value in the eyes of law and same found to the appellate court to be inadmissible in evidence. The learned appellate court considered the witnesses’ statement and found that Dileshwar Sahu (D.W.1) has stated in Para-6 of his examination-in-chief that father and son had partitioned their whole landed property including house and door in the year 1977 and in this regard memorandum of partition was prepared on 15.04.1997. Deo Charan Manjhi @ Dev Gond (D.W.2) has also stated in Para-3 of his examination-in-chief that a partition has taken place in between Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena. Ram Sahu (D.W.3) in Para 4 of his examination-in-chief has also stated that he was told by Lohra Jena and Sukru Jena regarding partition which had taken place in between both of them. Balram Das (D.W.4) in Para 2 of his examination-in-chief has also stated that partition relating to house and land in between, Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena had taken place in the year 1977 and Jai Mohan Ohdar (D.W.5) has also stated in Para-2 of his examination-in-chief that on 15.04.1977 Sukru Jena called him and told that his son has solemnised his marriage with a girl of different cast and thereafter, dispute is taking place and thereafter, a memorandum of partition was prepared over which Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena put their thumb impression. Therefore, from the perusal of depositions of these 2026:JHHC:16865 12 witnesses, appellate court has found that it is clear that the documents was prepared on the same day when partition took place and admittedly, Ext-A is not a memorandum of partition rather it is a partition deed and the same as per Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act requires to be registered and as per legal requirement, unregistered partition deed is inadmissible in evidence. Thus, learned appellate court found that defendant Nos.1 to 4 have not successfully established the pleading of partition in between Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena, so the legal presumption regarding jointness of family of Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena was found by the learned appellate court. On perusal of alleged sale deed Nos. 2322, 2321 and 2320 dated 06.10.1998 (Ext-1/G, 1/H and 1/1), the learned appellate court found that the same have been executed in favour of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in respect of suit property, but the same have been cancelled vide Cancellation Deed No. 2839/98, 2841/98 and 2840/98(Ext- 2, 2/3 & 2/b) due to non-payment of consideration money to Lohra Jena and Dileshwar Sahu (D.W.1) in Para-13 of the cross-examination has stated that the consideration amount paid after registration of sale deed and the amount was paid at the residence of Lohra Jena and Balram Das (D.W.4) also in Para-5 of his cross-examination has stated that the payment of consideration amount was made at the residence of Lohra Jena and on perusal of affidavit dated 06.02.1999 (Ext-C), the appellate court found that with regard to payment of consideration money, the things are not very clear and the same might be the reason for cancellation of alleged sale deeds and on perusal of 'CHUTKA' (receipt) (Ext-B) also the appellate court found that Lohra Jena himself executed the certificate on 06.10.1998 that he had received a sum of Rs. 78,500/- (Rs. Seventy eight thousand five hundred) from the hands of these defendants. However, on perusal of C.C. of registered sale deed Nos. 2322, 2321 and 2320 dated 06.10.1998 (Ext-E, E/1 and E/2), it transpired to the appellate court that said Lohra Jena was paid the consideration amount before the execution of said sale deed from which it was apparent that Lohra Jena had received the whole consideration money in the presence of registering authority who has given a certificate to that effect and as a settled view of law, the documentary evidence will prevail over 2026:JHHC:16865 13 the oral evidence and in these circumstances, the cancellation of sale deed (Ext-2, 2/A and 2/B) are of no benefit and advantage to anyone, held by the appellate court. The perusal of certified copy of Sale deed No. 372/378 dated 03.05.2001 and 233/238 dated 23.05.1997 (Ext-E/3 and E/4), the appellate court found that Lohra Jena executed some sale deeds in the year 1997 and 2001 in favour of Aghan Gond and Keshmati Devi and on perusal of two plain mortgage deeds (Ext-D and D/1) it transpired to the appellate court that Lohra Jena executed mortgage deeds in the year 1990 and 1996 in favour of Radha Sahu. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances discussed above, the appellate court held that since the partition deed (Ext-A) which is unregistered, the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 cannot rely on Ext-A an inadmissible documents. And, it is held by the learned appellate court that the partition in between Sukru Jena and Lohra Jena and the suit property remain in jointness, so the plea of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 that Lohra Jena in possession on specific portion of suit land is not sustainable and it is also well settled that a coparcener is competent to transfer the joint family property and the undivided share of coparcener can be the subject matter of sale but possession cannot be handed over to the vendee unless the property is partitioned, so there is no legal bar in passing of title in respect of undivided joint family property on transfer by a coparcener and the vendee is entitled to seek partition to the extent of alienation made in their behalf. The appellate court held that Lohra Jena one of the coparcener was competent to the extent of his share in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and title will pass in favour of vendee to that extent. Thus, it was further held by the appellate court that sale deed Nos. 2320, 2321 and 2322 (Ext-E, E/1 and E/2) are valid documents and binding to the extent of share of Lohra Jena in the suit property and these registered sale deeds (Ext-E, E/1 and E/2) are void and ineffective having no legal force to the extent that they are in excess up-to the share of Lohra Jena in the suit property. Thus, appellate court found that the reasons for finding arrived at by the learned trial court below was correct. 16. In view of the above discussion by the learned appellate court, I am of the view that the learned appellate court has rightly decided the 2026:JHHC:16865 14 issue Nos.7 and 8 partly in favour of the plaintiff/appellant in T.A. No. 07/10 and partly against the appellants/defendants in T.A. No. 04/10. 17. In the light of the above, the learned appellate court has further re-appreciated the entire facts and the evidence and dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment of the learned trial court. What has been argued by Mr. Pandey for admitting the present second appeal, has been dealt with length by the learned trial court as well as by the learned first appellate court in its right perspective. In course of argument, Mr. Pandey has not been able to point out any perversity in the judgment of the learned courts. There are concurrent findings of two courts. There is no law point involved. It is well known that for admitting second appeal, High Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence. Only on the law point, the second appeal can be admitted. There is no perversity in the said judgments of the learned trial court and the learned first appellate court. In this background, the second appeal cannot be admitted as there are concurrent finding of two courts. 18. The judgments (supra) relied by Mr. Pandey are decided in the facts and circumstances of those cases, the facts and circumstance of the present case in the light of the twice litigation, are different. Those judgments are not helping the appellants. 19. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, this second appeal is hereby, dismissed. Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Anit Uploaded 16.06.2026