2026:JHHC:20197 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 457 of 2015 ------ 1. Shambhu Prasad, S/o Late Nando Sao, resident of Ward No.-05, Pethiyatanr Bazar within Chatra Municipality, P.O., P.S. & District- Chatra 2. Radha Devi, W/o Suresh Prasad, resident of Jhanda Chowk, P.O., P.S. & District- Hazaribagh 3. Munni Devi, W/o Jawahir Prasad, resident of P.O. & P.S.-Sherghati, District- Gaya .... .... …. Appellants Versus 1. Usha Devi, W/o Late Ramchandra Lal Gupta 2. Lapu Kumar, S/o Late Ramchandra Lal 3. Gapoo Kumar, S/o Late Ramchandra Lal 4. Soni Kumari 5. Monti Kumari 6. Sonam Kumari (Minor) 7. Supriya Kumari (Minor) All daughter of Late Ranchandra Lal All residents Bazar Tanr, Chatra, P.O., P.S. & District- Chatra 8. Dorupadi Devi, W/o Late Balgovind Sao, resident of Pethiya Tanr Bazar, P.O., P.S. & District- Chatra 9. Paro Devi, W/o Mahesh Prasad, resident of Bara Bazar, P.O., P.S., & District- Hazaribagh 10. Tara Devi, W/o Sudarshan Prasad, resident of Village-Jhingi, P.O. & P.S.- Kuru, District- Lohardaga 11. Beli Devi, W/o Shambhu Prasad 12. Gudiya Devi, W/o Shambhu Prasad Both resident of Okani Mohalla, P.O., P.S. and District Hazaribagh .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Nanda Kumari, Advocate ------ 09/08.07.2026 This second appeal has been preferred being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree dated 30th May, 2015 passed by learned 1st District Judge, Chatra in Title Appeal No.32/2007 reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 11.10.2007 passed by learned Subordinate Judge-I, Chatra in Partition Suit No.19/1998. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants/respondents/plaintiffs instituted Partition Suit No.19/1998 for partition of one half share in the Schedule A land and by carrying out a Takhta of half share through appointment of Survey knowing Pleader Commissioner and the plaintiff be put in possession over the Takhta so 2026:JHHC:20197 2 allotted to them and with regard to that the suit was instituted which has been decreed on 11.10.2007 by the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Chatra. He next submits that the defendants have preferred appeal being Title Appeal No.32 of 2007 which has been decided by the judgment dated 30th May, 2015 by the learned 1st District Judge, Chatra and he has been pleased to reverse the judgment of the learned trial court and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved with the said judgment of the learned first appellate court, the appellants herein have preferred the present second appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned first appellate court seriously erred in not properly appreciating the pleading and evidence of parties while holding that the property purchased vide Exhibit C is self-acquired property of Balgovind Sao. He submits that is substantial question of law and the second appeal may kindly be admitted. 4. Appellants/plaintiffs instituted Partition Suit No.19/1998 praying therein that on adjudication, a preliminary decree of plaintiffs’ one half share in the Schedule A land be passed and by carrying out a Takhta of half share through appointment of survey knowing Pleader Commissioner, the plaintiff be put in possession over the Takhta so allotted to them. It transpires from the judgment of the courts that the case of the appellants/plaintiffs was that Bulak Sao, who was Karta of the joint family purchased Schedule A land with Khaparphos house within Chatra Municipality old Ward No. 2, present Ward No.5, P.O. & P.S. Chatra, the then District Hazaribagh, Holding No. 455 presently Holding No. 111, area measuring about 03 Kattha with Munga tree thereon from Deoki Mistri, son of Khusilal Mistri for himself and on behalf of his minor sons Punit Mistri and Prabhu Mistri of Chatra on payment of valuable consideration out of joint family fund by dint of registered sale deed No. 823 dated 21.09.1942 got executed in the name of his elder son Govind Sahu @ Balgovind Sahu, who was minor at that time. Further case of the plaintiff is that the said area of Chatra Municipality was not surveyed, hence there was no Khata and plot number of Schedule A and the land is identifiable by boundary as mentioned in the Schedule A. Further case is that Bulak Sahu after purchasing the Schedule A land with house and Gharbari came in possession and began living therein with his family members which includes his wife, daughters and two sons Govind Sahu and Nandu Sahu, 2026:JHHC:20197 3 both then minor. Jamindari return filed by ex-landlord recognizing Bulak Sahu as tenant appertaining to the Schedule A land and on the basis of return, demand was opened on vesting. Bulak Sahu got solemnized marriage of his two sons in his newly purchased house standing on Schedule A land and exercised right of manager and Karta of joint family till his death. Further case is that Bulak Sahu died in the year 1970, so his right title and interest in the Schedule A land devolved on his two sons, namely, Balgovind and Nando Sahu and grandsons and daughter, who began exercising joint ownership and possession over Schedule A land. Further case of the plaintiff is that marriage of defendant No. 3 and 7 were solemnized in the year 1973 under the Kartaship of Balgovind Sahu. Thereafter, plaintiff No.1 also got married in the year 1977 while Balgovind was guardian of the family. Balgovind Sahu died in the year 1970 in jointness with his brother namely Nando Sahu, who became Karta of the family. Further case is that as the family increased Nandu Sahu for convenience began living with his wife in the house of Mahavir Dubey in which he was holding his shop. Further case is that in the year 1997 father of the plaintiff No 1 fall seriously ill, so the plaintiff No. 1 with his wife began living with his father, who required proper care and assistance. Further Nandu Sahu, father of plaintiff No.1 died in the year 1997 and his right, title in Schedule A land was inherited and succeeded by plaintiffs and pro-forma defendant No. 7 and 8. After death of Nandu Sahu, plaintiffs requested the defendants for partition of Schedule A land and house but they evaded and lastly on 15.06.1996, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 refused to make partition. Further case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties have been acquired by Bulak Sahu out of joint family fund for himself and benefit of entire family. The plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and proforma defendant Nos. 7 and 8 together have half share in Schedule A land whereas defendant Nos. 1 to 6 are entitled to half share. Further case is that pro- forma defendant Nos. 3 to 8 did not claim any share in the suit land. They are living in their respective matrimonial houses. 5. Defendants/Respondents in their written statement has admitted para 1 and denied para 2 of the plaint and stated that Balgovind Sahu was born in the year 1920 and died on 13.10.1978. Balgovind Sahu soon after the marriage in 1941 became separate in all respect from his father and 2026:JHHC:20197 4 brother and started residing as tenant in the house of one Bandhan Kumhar, Bazartand near Nayaki Talab. After separation Balgovind Sao ceased to be a member of a joint family consisting of his father, brother and himself. Balgovind Sahu after about one year of his separation from his father and brother purchased Schedule A property from his separate earning. Not a single pie was invested by Bulak Sao or from alleged joint family fund in purchasing the property. Balgovind Sao at the relevant point of time was major. Further denied that Bulak Sao exercising his right title and interest over the suit property as real owner. Balgovind Sahu remain in occupation of the suit Property along with his wife and children as real and absolute owner. Bulak Sao and Nando Sao had not resided in the house standing over portion of the suit property. Further the defendant No. 1 and his sister were born in the house standing over a portion of suit property, but neither plaintiff No. I nor his two sister were born in the suit house. Further Bulak Sao had no concern with the suit property. Further Balgovind Sao was karta of his family consisting of his wife, son and daughters and similarly Nando Sahu was Karta of his family consisting of his wife son and his daughter. Further that Nando Sahu had no right, title, interest over the suit property, so plaintiffs and proforma defendant nos. 7 and 8 inheriting and succeeding any interest in the suit land on death of Nando Sahu never arose nor will arise. The suit properties were acquired by Balgovind Sahu out of his separate fund for him and his family. Neither Nando Sahu had any share, nor the plaintiffs, nor the defendant Nos. 7 and 8, have any share in the suit properties. 6. Defendants/respondent nos.3 to 6 in their written statement have stated that Balgovind Sao just after marriage, separated from his father and mother and started living in the house of Bandhan Kumhar and started separate business from his own separate earning purchased and Schedule A property, so suit property is self-acquired property by Balgovind Sahu neither Bulak Sahu nor Nando Sahu has right title interest in the suit land. 7. Defendant Nos.7 and 8, who are the sister of plaintiff No.1 have appeared and supported the case of the plaintiffs regarding his claim of half share in the suit land. 8. Learned trial court has framed five issues. Issue No. IV was with regard to unity of title and possession of the parties over the suit land. While 2026:JHHC:20197 5 deciding the said issue, the learned trial court has found that the sale deed executed in the name of Balgovind Sao is an admitted document. P.W. 1 has proved the Government rent receipt i.e. Exhibit 1. P.W. 2 Shambhu Prasad has been shown as plaintiff no.1, supported the case of the appellants/plaintiffs. He has stated in his deposition that Bulak Sao was his grandfather, who had two sons namely Balgvind and Nando Sao. His Suit land is situated in Bazartand. He has further stated that Bulak Sao has purchased the properties in the name of Govind Sao from one Deoki Mishtri in the year 1942. He has also stated that he has resided in the house till 1996 and in 1997, demanded partition which was denied by the defendants. The learned court has further examined evidences of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 as well as D.W. 1 and D.W. 3 and the trial court has come to the finding that inference can be drawn that the said witness has no have knowledge with regard to the suit land and it can also be said that he has wrongly deposed his statement. D.W. 6- Ram Chandra Lal Gupta, who was the main contesting defendant, deposed on behalf of defendant no.2 also and in his examination-in-chief has supported the case of the defendant nos.1 and 2. He has stated that Hukumnama was granted in the name of Bulak Sao, but the same has not been pleaded in his pleadings. In view of that, the court has found that the said Hukumnama is beyond the pleading. He also stated about the proceeding under Sections 107 and 144 of the Cr.P.C. and in view of that the learned court has found that there was no partition. 9. D.W. 4 has stated that Balgovind Sao has died before 18-19 years and by way of subtracting 18 years, the learned trial court has held that he was minor and in view of that he has concluded that Bulak Sao purchased the suit land in the name of his elder son namely Balgovind Sao. In this background, the learned court has held that presumption of jointness are there and decided the same issue in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs and subsequently decreed the suit in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs by the judgment dated 11.10.2007. 10. Aggrieved with the judgment of the learned trial court, the respondents/defendants preferred Title Appeal No.32/2007. The learned first appellate court has framed two points to decide at para 12 of the said judgment and point no.1 was with respect to jointness and point no.2 was 2026:JHHC:20197 6 whether it was the self-acquired property of Balgovind Sao or not. 11. Learned appellate court has considered Exhibit C i.e. Original Sale Deed No.823 dated 22.09.1942. It was found by the learned first appellate court that the purchaser Balgovind Sao son of Bulak Sao, was not minor at the relevant time of purchase on 22.09.1942 as minor aspect has not been discussed in the sale deed. The learned court has also found that the purchaser was a shop keeper at the relevant time and in view of that it has been found by the learned first appellate court that he has his own income to purchase the suit property and in view of that it has been observed that Schedule A was acquired by Govind Sao @ Balgovind Sao, father of defendant no.1 and husband of defendant no.2 and it was self-acquired property by Balgovind Sao, who was major at the time of purchase and having his own business that is source of income for purchasing the said suit property. In view of that contention of the appellants/plaintiffs of acquiring the said property by Bulak Sao in the name of his minor son Balgovind Sao from the joint family fund, was found not correct. Learned court has also considered that there is no presumption of property being joint family property only on account of existence of joint Hindu family property. The one who asserts, has to prove that the property is a joint Hindu family property. If however, the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus which the joint family property could be acquired, there would be presumption of the property joint and the onus would shift on the person who claim it to be self- acquired property to prove that he purchased the property form his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus, that was available. The learned first appellate court has further considered Exhibit D series which are the municipal tax receipts regarding the Schedule A land in the name of Balgovind Sao issued from 1956-67. Exhibit A series are the tax receipts about the suit land that is Schedule A land issued in the name of Ramchandra Prasad, son of Late Balgovind Sao, the defendant no.1 of the year 1981 to 2000 which was also found by the learned first appellate court that Schedule A property was registered in the name of Balgovind Sao in municipal records and after his death, his son Ramchandra Prasad (defendant no.1), who has also supported and proved the case of the defendants that Schedule A property was separate property of Balgovind 2026:JHHC:20197 7 Sao. 12. In this background, the learned first appellate court has reversed the finding of the learned trial court. It transpires that the learned first appellate court has rightly interpreted the documents and has come to that conclusion and found the judgment of the learned trial court perverse and thereafter, decided the appeal by way of dismissing the same by reversing the judgment of the learned trial court. Thus, what has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants for admitting the present appeal, has been rightly answered by the learned first appellate court and as such this court finds that there is no substantial question of law involved to admit the present second appeal. In the second appeal, the High Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence and only on the substantial question of law the second appeal can be admitted. There is no perversity in the judgment of the learned first appellate court. 13. The second appeal is hereby, dismissed. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 08.07.2026 Anit Uploaded 13.07.2026