2026:JHHC:155 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S. A. No. 12 of 2021 1. Patwari Murmu, aged about 60 years, son of Late Dhani Murmu. 2. Sonalal Murmu, aged about 48 years. 3. Tala Murmu, aged about 45 years. 4. Jetan Murmu, aged about 42 years. Serial Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are son of Late Nayaki Murmu. All are resident of Village: Amjhor, Post Office & Police Station: Boarijore, District: Godda. … … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants Versus Munilal Murmu, son of Mangal Murmu, Resident of Village: Amjhor, Post Office & Police Station: Boarijore, District: Godda. … … Defendant/Respondent/Respondent --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Manoj Kumal Sah, Advocate For the Respondents : --- 14/05.01.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 28.02.2020 (decree signed on 18.03.2020) passed by learned District Judge-I, Godda in Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2019 upholding the judgment dated 12.12.2018 (decree signed on 08.01.2019) passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I, Godda in Title Suit No. 44 of 2005. 3. The title suit was dismissed by the learned trial court and the judgment and decree passed in title suit was affirmed by the learned 1st appellate court. Consequently, the plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the suit property involved in this case is ancestral property which was recorded in the name of Pandu Murmu and Bali Murmu and Chhota Karan Murmu (died issueless) therefore, the interest of Chhota Karan Murmu devolved upon the remaining two recorded tenants. The learned counsel submits that son of Bala Murmu namely Khare 2026:JHHC:155 2 Murmu died issueless and consequently, as per the case of the plaintiffs, the entire interest devolved upon Pandu Murmu and the plaintiffs are the descendants of Pandu Murmu. The learned counsel has also submitted that the plaintiffs had sought a declaration of the right, title and interest with respect to the suit property and also sought a declaration that the registered adoption deed dated 16.11.1978/18.12.1978 allegedly executed by Khare Murmu adopting the sole defendant namely Muni Lal Murmu, was null and void. 5. The learned counsel submits that the plaintiffs came to know for the first time that the defendant was claiming the property when in the year 2005 one camp was organized for correction in the record of rights. The learned counsel submits that both the plaintiffs and defendants had approached the authority for entry of their names in the record of rights and then the suit was filed in the year 2005. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned judgments has submitted that the parties belonging to Santhal tribe and they are governed by customary law of Santhals and accordingly the provision of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 are not applicable. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that there is no concept of adoption under Santhal tribe and otherwise also the process of handing over and taking over of the defendant by his adoptive father Kahre Murmu has not been proved and therefore, the so-called adoption as claimed by the defendant was null and void, even if the claim of the defendant was based on a registered deed of adoption. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that aforesaid aspects of the matter have not been properly considered by the courts and further the courts have also held that the suit was barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the plaintiffs came to know about the deed of adoption for the first time in the year 2005 and they filed the suit in 2005 itself and therefore, the finding of the learned court that the suit was barred by limitation is itself perverse and it calls for interference by framing a substantial question of law. 2026:JHHC:155 3 8. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment passed by Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in AIR 1977 Patna 199 [Kashi Nath Rai v. Mahadeo Rai and others], though dealing with the adoption under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and has submitted that giving and taking ceremony is essential for a valid adoption. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that the suit was filed challenging the registered deed of adoption deed dated 16.11.1978/18.12.1978 and for declaration that the same was null and void. It was the case specific case of the plaintiffs that since Khare Murmu had died issueless, the property would devolve upon the agnates. The claim of the defendant on the basis of registered deed of adoption by Khare Murmu was null and void and as per the plaintiffs, the cause of action arose on 26.09.2005 when the plaintiffs came to know about the registered deed of adoption dated 16.11.1978/18.12.1978. 10. The learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration:- 1. Is the suit as framed maintainable in the eye of law? 2. Is the suit barred by law of limitation? 3. Is Hindu law and the Hindu adoption and maintenance Act 1956 applicable to the parties who are Tribals? 4. Was there valid adoption of Munilal Murmu by late Khare Murmu on 14.01.1978? 5. Whether the ceremony of giving and taking in adoption was duly performed? 6. Was there transfer of Munilal Murmu from original family to the family of so called adopted father? 7. Was the alleged adoption deed no. 153 dated 16.11.78/18.12.78 book No.8 vol No. 46 validly executed by Khare Murmu? 8. Is the adoption deed No. 153 dated 16.11.78/18.12.78 forged, fabricated, illegal and fit to be cancelled? 9. Are the plaintiffs entitled to the reliefs claimed? 11. Learned counsel for the appellants in particular has referred to issue No. (2), (3) and (4), framed by the learned trial court. 12. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidences before the court. The details of the oral and documentary evidences placed on 2026:JHHC:155 4 record have been mentioned in the learned 1st appellate court’s judgment which is as under:- Oral evidence adduced by plaintiffs P.W.1 Ganga Ram Soren P.W.2 Subhash Chandra Murmu P.W.3 Baldeo Pandit P.W.4 Ishwar Pandit P.W.5 Sonalal Murmu P.W.6 Patwari Murmu P.W.7 Suprabha Murmu Documentary evidence on behalf of plaintiffs Exhibit 1 to 1/6 Rent receipts Mouza- Amjhore J.B. No.21.0 Oral Evidence adduced by defendants D.W.1 Tala Murmu D.W.2 Shivlal Murmu D.W.3 Suban Mirdha D.W.4 Bhola Pandit D.W.5 Ramlal Murmu D.W.6 Munilal Murmu Documentary evidence on behalf of defendants Exhibit-A Ekrarnama Exhibit-B Mouza-Parcha Exhibit B/1 Deed No. 135 Certified Copy Exhibit-C to C/21 Rent Receipts Exhibit-D Certificate of death 13. The learned trial court ultimately held that the parties are cousins amongst themselves and as per the customary law, in case of person died issueless, he can adopt a son. The learned court also recorded that the plaintiffs were aware about the adoption, but they did not take steps within three years of their knowledge and ultimately the court held that the suit was also barred by limitation. The learned court also recorded that the required ceremony for adoption was duly performed and ultimately held that the registered deed of adoption dated 16.11.1978/18.12.1978 is neither forged nor fabricated and is 2026:JHHC:155 5 not fit to be declared null and void and the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief and consequently, dismissed the suit. 14. So far as the learned 1st appellate court is concerned, the same points as of learned trial court were taken into consideration. 15. The learned 1st appellate court while deciding issue No. 1 and 2 has elaborately dealt with the oral and documentary evidences led by the parties and held that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the adoption deed as back as on 21.06.2000, but they filed the suit in the year 2005 for cancellation of the adoption deed. The learned 1st appellate court held that the suit challenging the deed of adoption is barred by limitation and found that the learned trial court had not committed any error while deciding issue No. 1 and 2. Further, the discussions in connection with issue Nos. 3 to 8 were taken up together and the court discussed all the oral and documentary evidence and recorded findings as follows:- “Issue No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 14. According to appellant lawyer submission the adoption deed no. 153 dt. 16.11.78 book no. 8 and vol. 46 is not validly executed deed by Khare Murmu, but it is created by impersonation of Khare Murmu, so it is declared forged fabricated and illegal. Further submitted that the Hindu land and Hindu adoption and maintenance Act 1956 is not applicable on the Santhal tribals and there are no any ceremony performed giving and taking of a child so the defendant Munilal Murmu is not a validly adopted child of late Khare Murmu. In support examined 7 witnesses during trial. Where as PW-1 Ganga Ram Soren, deposed in para-4 that Munilal Murmu never resides in the house of Khare Murmu. Further deposed in para-6 that plaintiffs performed the funeral ceremony of Khare Murmu and he is cultivating the lands of Khare Murmu. Further deposed in para-7 that Munilal Murmu never adopted by late Khare Murmu. But this witness do not came in the court for cross examination, so the chief in examination is set aside. PW-2 Subhash Chandra Murmu 20 Support the plaint and deposed in para-7 that Munilal Murmu created a forged document of adoption, in village never performed ceremony of giving and taking. Further deposed in para-8 that Patwari Murmu and other members cultivated the land of Khare Murmu. But this witness accepted in para-12 that Khare Murmu have no any issue and further accepted in para-13 that the lands are separately in 2026:JHHC:155 6 parcha. But accepted in para-15 that both parties create an Ekrarnama in year 2000 in which plaintiffs admitted that Munilal Murmu is the adopted son of Khare Murmu and this witness signed the Ekrarnama. PW-3 Baldeo Pandit, PW-4 Ishwar Pandit also supported the statement of PW-2 Subhash Chandra Murmu. PW-5 Sonalal Murmu and PW-6 Patwari Murmu both are plaintiffs. PW-5 deposed in para-4 that Khare Murmu was issue less, so whole life they resides with Patwari Murmu and Patwari Murmu performed funeral ceremony of late Khare Murmu and he is cultivating all share of Khare Murmu. This witness clearly accepted in para-24 that if any tribals remained issue less then he can adopt any child. PW-6 Patwari Murmu support in chief in examination the plaint but accepted in cross examination para-22 that he signed the Ekrarnama on 21.7.2000 due to threatening. Whereas on behalf of defendant examined DW-1 Tala Murmu, who accepted in para-12 that there is a custom in Santhal to adopt a child. Further accepted in para-14 that the father of Munilal died before 10 to 15 years. Accepted in para-23 that both parties are Santhals and it is not true that Santhal can not adopt a child. Further accepted in para-28 that when Khare Murmu died the Munilal Murmu performed the funeral ceremony in which Pradhan Karan, Betka Murmu, Patwari Murmu also remain present. DW-2 Shivlal Murmu, deposed in cross examination that para-15 that all lands partitioned in his presence. It is not partitioned by the Amin. Further accepted in para-19 that he have the knowledge of Ekranama which prepared in presence of Thakuri Pandit, Hemlal Mirdha, Sonalal Murmu, Talababu Murmu, Patwari Murmu, etc., Ramlal Murmu and Munilal Murmu examined who accepted that a deed of adoption is prepared which is registered. 15. After perusal of oral and documentary evidences as produced on behalf of appellant and respondents on the record. It is clear that there are customs in Santhal to adopt a son if person is issue less. The plaintiff Sonalal Murmu and Patwari Murmu himself accepted the adoption of Munilal Murmu by late Khare Murmu in Ekrarnama dt. 21.7.2000 which signed by both plaintiffs. Ext.- B/1 is registered adoption deed which clearly written that Munilal Murmu adopted by late Khare Murmu in the year 1978, the Ext.-C is so many revenue receipts which shows that Munilal Murmu paid the revenue to government and cultivating the share of late Khare Murmu. Lower court rightly interpret and decided the fact that late Khare Murmu validly adopted the child Munilal Murmu and there are no any fraud or impersonation 2026:JHHC:155 7 playing in the adoption deed. If any deed is registered then it is presumption that all local custom and ceremony may be performed by the parties. So the objection of the plaintiffs that the ceremony of giving and taking is not performed is not true and above issues rightly decided by the ld. lower court against the plaintiffs. The appellate court found no any illegality or irregularity in the findings of lower court. Hence above issues appellate court decided against the plaintiffs and confirmed the findings of ld. Lower court. Issue no. 9 16. All issues no. 1 to 8 decided against the plaintiffs so appellate court found that the plaintiffs are not entitled to find any reliefs as claimed. Hence this issue is also decided against the plaintiffs. In the ends of justice the following order is passed in the light of above discussion.” 16. This Court finds that both the courts have held that there are customs in Santhal tribe to adopt son, if person died issueless. The plaintiffs Sonalal Murmu and Patwari Murmu himself accepted the adoption of Munilal Murmu by late Khade Murmu in Ekrarnama on 21.07.2000 which was signed by both the plaintiffs; Exhibit B/1 is the registered deed of adoption in which it is clearly written that Munilal Murmu was adopted by Late Khare Murmu in the year 1978 and Exhibit-C shows so many revenue receipts and Munilal Murmu paid the revenue to government and cultivating the share of late Khare Murmu, his adoptive father. The learned court held that there was neither any fraud nor impersonation in connection with the adoption deed and ultimately was of the view that the learned trial court has not recorded any illegality in dismissing the suit and affirms the findings of the learned trial court. 17. Both the learned courts have held that the plaintiffs Sonalal Murmu and Patwari Murmu himself accepted the adoption of Munilal Murmu by late Khade Murmu in Ekrarnama on 21.07.2000 which was signed by both the plaintiffs and the suit challenging the deed of adoption was filed much after expiry of three years and hence was barred by limitation. This Court finds that both the courts have considered every aspects of the matter while dismissing the suit and the fact remains that the suit was held to be barred by limitation after 2026:JHHC:155 8 considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and the adoption deed in the present case is a registered document. 18. This Court finds that no question of law, much less any substantial question of law is involved in this 2nd appeal. 19. Accordingly, this 2nd appeal is dismissed. 20. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 21. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned courts through “Fax/E-mail”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 05.01.2026 Binit/-Rakesh/- Uploaded On:- 17th February, 2026.