( 2026:JHHC:2153 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 204 of 2007 1.Ramdhani Bhagat adopted son of Late Hari Narayan Bhagat son of late Badri Bhagat described in the decree under Appeal as son of late Badri Bhagat, by occupation-cultivation, resident of village-Jawari, P.O. and P.S. Ramgarh, District Santhal Pargana, Jharkhand (substituted vide order dated 29.10.2021) …. Respondent no. 1(a) in the decree under appeal impleaded as per order dated 15.07.2006/Appellant 1. (a) Sulochana Devi wife of late Ramdhani Bhagat 1. (b) Bidyanand Bhagat, son of late Ramdhani Bhagat 1. (c) Sunil Kumar Bhagat, son of late Ramdhani Bhagat 1. (d) Pappu Kumar Bhagat, son of late Ramdhani Bhagat All resident of village Jawari, Block Ramgarh, P.O. and P.S. Ramgarh, District Dumka, State Jharkhand 1. (e) Ranjana Devi, daughter of late Ramdhani Bhagat, wife of Shrwan Kumar Munna, resident of Nagpath Road, Shivpahar, Dumka, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District Dumka, State Jharkhand … … Appellants Versus 1. Ramrati Devi wife of Sri Ramanand Sah, by occupation-Cultivator, resident of village-Burhi Kurwa, P.O. and P.S. Godda, District- Santhal Parganas (Jharkhand) 2. Malti Devi, wife of Sri Ganesh Prasad Sah, by occupation- Cultivator, resident of village-Kodo Khicha, P.O. and P.S. Dumka Mufassil, District-Santhal Parganas (Jharkhand) … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Respondents 3. Ram Shankar Bhagat, son of late Badri Bhagat, resident of Village- Jawari, P.O. and P.S. Ramgarh, District-Santhal Pargana (Jharkhand) … Defendant 1st set/Respondent no. 1/Respondent 4. Mt. Bokhia Bhagatwain, widow of late Satya Narayan Bhagat, by occupation-Cultivator, resident of village-Jawari, P.O. and P.S. Ramgarh, District-Santhal Pargana, Jharkhand (deleted vide order dated 31.03.2010) … Defendant No. 2/Respondent 2nd Party/Proforma Respondent --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate : Mr. Abdul Wahab, Advocate : Mr. Anurag Chandra, Advocate : Mr. Sachin Verma, Advocate For the Resp. (1,2 & 4) : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Senior Advocate : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate : Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Aman Kedia, Advocate For the Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate --- ( 2026:JHHC:2153 ) 2 29/27.01.2026 This appeal has been filed against the judgement dated 10.08.2007 (decree signed on 22.08.2007) passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Dumka in Title (Partition) Appeal No. 4 of 2005/F.A. No. 14 of 1977 whereby the appeal was allowed. The Title Suit No. 70 of 1974 was decided vide judgement dated 09.11.1976 (decree dated 26.11.1976). 2. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 16.04.2009 on the following substantial question of law:- (i) Whether the findings recorded by the courts below without appreciating additional evidence adduced at the appellate stage can be sustained in law? (ii) Whether the finding on the issue of adoption in absence of the appellant is binding on the appellant who was not a party to the suit? 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the suit was filed seeking partition in various schedules to the plaint but the partition was allowed with respect to all the schedules, except schedule D property. He has submitted that the plaintiff was the appellant before the 1st appellate court and the 1st appellate court allowed the appeal whereby the relief with respect to the partition of schedule D property was also allowed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that at no point of time the original appellant was party before the learned trial court or before the learned 1st appellate court. However, he became a party for the first time through the final judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court and in the decree, the name of the appellant is also appearing. 5. The learned counsel submits that the original appellant was the biological son of Badri Bhagat but at the same time, he was the adopted son of Hari Narayan Bhagat. He submits that at the 1st appellate stage, a petition for substitution of Badri Bhagat, who is said to have expired on 12.01.1994, was filed along with the petition for condonation of delay in filing substitution. A prayer was made to substitute Badri Bhagat by his two sons namely Ram Dhani Bhagat and Rama Shankar Bhagat. He submits that since there was a dispute ( 2026:JHHC:2153 ) 3 as to whether Ram Dhani Bhagat (the original appellant in this appeal ) would be a legal heir or Badri Bhagat, the substitution was partly allowed vide order dated 15.07.2006 whereby only Rama Shankar Bhagat was substituted as a legal heir of Badri Bhagat and the substitution of Ramdhani Bhagat (present original appellant) as legal heir of Badri Bhagat was kept in abeyance till the final decision of the appeal. 6. The learned counsel submits that on account of the aforesaid, the original appellant of this case never became a party before the 1st appellate court. 7. The learned counsel submits that the learned 1st appellate court ultimately passed the judgement and held that Ramdhani Bhagat (the original appellant of this case) is not the adopted son of Hari Narayan Bhagat and in the final judgment itself, Ramdhani Bhagat has been directed to be substituted as one of the legal heirs and successors of Badri Bhagat. 8. He submits that such a course of procedure was not as per law and it has caused great prejudice to the appellant as finding of adoption has been recorded against him in the impugned judgement passed by the learned 1st appellate court in his absence. 9. He submits that in the light of the aforesaid background, the second substantial question of law as framed vide order dated 06.04.2009 be decided in favour of the appellants and the matter be remanded to the learned 1st appellate court to first take up the matter of substitution of Badri Bhagat and thereafter decide the 1st appeal in accordance with law. 10. He submits that if the 2nd substantial question of law is decided in the aforesaid manner, the 1st substantial question of law need not be gone into as the 1st appellate court has not taken into consideration the additional evidence also as per law. He has also submitted that one petition seeking adducing additional evidence has also been filed before this court under order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and by order passed by this court, it has been directed that the same will be considered at the time of final hearing. The learned counsel submits that even the ( 2026:JHHC:2153 ) 4 additional evidence can be taken care of by the concerned party before the learned 1st appellate court, if the matter is remanded. 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent nos. 1,2 & 4 has submitted that so far as 1st substantial question of law is concerned, the additional evidence sought to be adduced here appears to have been taken into consideration at the relevant point of time while coming to a finding. The learned counsel has also submitted that if there is anything more, then the parties can certainly file additional evidence at the 1st appellate stage. 12. During the course of hearing, it is not in dispute from the side of the contesting respondents that the appellant became a party before the 1st appellate court only in the final judgment and the point regarding his substitution as legal heir of Badri Bhagat was kept in abeyance vide order dated 15.07.2006. 13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 has supported the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. 14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon going through the order dated 15.07.2006 passed by the learned 1st appellate court, this court finds that on account of death of Badri Bhagat, one petition for substitution was filed seeking substitution of two of his biological sons namely Ramadhani Bhagat and Rama Shankar Bhagat, however by the said order, substitution of only Rama Shankar Bhagat was allowed and so far as Ramdhani Bhagat (present original appellant) is concerned, his status as legal heirs of Badri Bhagat was kept in abeyance till the final decision of the appeal. 15. This court further finds that the learned 1st appellate court while finally deciding the appeal, has taken care of the aforesaid aspect of the matter and held that Ramdhani Bhagat was not the adopted son of Late Hari Narayan Bhagat and Ramdhani Bhagat being the biological son of Badri Bhagat was held to be one of the legal heirs and successors of Badri Bhagat. 16. Thus, the appellant was declared to be one of the legal heirs and successors of Badri Bhagat for the first time in the judgement passed ( 2026:JHHC:2153 ) 5 by the learned 1st appellate court and consequently the original appellant (Ramdhani Bhagat) though was neither a party before the learned trial court nor a party before the learned 1st appellate court having been substituted as a legal heir for the 1st time by the final judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court, the decree has been passed including the name of the original appellant (Ramdhani Bhagat) by the learned 1st appellate court. 17. This court is of the considered view that aforesaid course of action adopted by the learned 1st appellate court in keeping the point of substitution of the original appellant (Ramdhani Bhagat) as one of the legal heirs of Badri Bhagat in abeyance vide order dated 15.07.2006 and deciding the same for the 1st time in the final judgment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The original appellant (Ramdhani Bhagat) has been prejudiced as the learned 1st appellate court has held that the original appellant (Ramdhani Bhagat) is not the adopted son of late Hari Narayan Bhagat in the absence of the original appellant (Ramdhani Bhagat). 18. Therefore, while answering the 2nd substantial question of law, this court is of the considered view that the finding on the issue of adoption in absence of the original appellant (Ramdhani Bhagat) by the impugned judgment is not binding on the original appellant (Ramdhani Bhagat) who is not a party to the suit. 19. However, the matter does not end here. The issue regarding the substitution of Badri Bhagat and the status of the original appellant (Ramdhani Bhagat) as to whether he was the adopted son of Badri Bhagat or not is certainly required to be taken to a logical end in accordance with law. 20. Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court cannot be sustained and the matter is remanded back to the 1st appellate court for fresh decision in accordance with law after duly deciding the point regarding substitution of Badri Bhagat and then the 1st appeal is required to be heard afresh in accordance with law. Since the parties are appearing before this court, the parties are ( 2026:JHHC:2153 ) 6 directed to appear before the learned 1st appellate court on 12th of March 2026 at 11 a.m. 21. The learned 1st appellate court shall first decide the point of substitution of Badri Bhagat and then proceed to decide the 1st appeal in accordance with law. The learned 1st appellate court shall not be prejudiced by any observation made by this court while deciding the 1st appeal afresh. 22. Since the impugned judgement has been set aside on the aforesaid short point while answering the 2nd substantial question of law, there is no need to decide the 1st substantial question of law regarding additional evidence at this stage as the impugned judgement of the 1st appellate court does not survive any more. It is sufficient to say that the learned 1st appellate court shall consider the additional evidence which is already on record and also further additional evidence which may be placed on record by the parties in accordance with law. 23. Since the case arises out of title suit of the year 1974, the learned 1st appellate court shall make all endeavor to decide the 1st appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 6 months from 12th of March 2026. 24. The parties to cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the 1st appeal. 25. This 2nd appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 26. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 27. Let the original record be immediately sent back to the learned 1st appellate court through special messenger which should reach the concerned much prior to 12th March 2026. 28. Let this judgement be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/e-mail. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 27.01.2026 Uploaded on:14.02.2026 Binit