2026:JHHC:214 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 254 of 2020 1. Bhutka Mahto aged about 61 years, son of Late Bhim Mahto, resident of village Gidhya, P.O. Jasidih, P.S. Jasidih at present Devipur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand 2. Chhatradhari Mahto, aged about 60 years, son of Late Dulo Mahto 3. Chandrika Devi @ Chanda Devi, aged about 70 years, wife of Late Lakhan Mahto 4. Sadanand Yadav, aged about 50 years, wife of Late Chhobi Mahto 5. Girdhari Mahto, aged about 65 years, son of Late Narayan Mahto 6. Raju Mahto, aged about 70 years, son of Late Narayan Mahto (deleted vide order dated 06.05.2025) 7. Ghanshaym Mahto, aged about 70 years, son of Late Puran Mahto 8. Santi Devi, aged about 62 years, wife of Late Rewa Mahto Serial Nos. 2 to 8 are R/o village Gidhya, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, present address-Devipur, District Deoghar 9. Indu Debi, aged about 32 years, wife of Manoj Yadav, R/o village Pachiyare Kothiya, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar 10. Mulwa Devi, aged about 55 years, son of Nakul Mahto, Daughter of Puran Mahto, R/o village Jerice Tanr, P.O. & P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar 11. Sarju Mahto, aged about 60 years, son of Late Bhim Mahto 12. Lalu Mahto, aged about 27 years, son of Late Bali Mahto 13. Dina Mahto, aged about 45 years, son of Late Narayan Mahto 14. Indira Devi, aged about 60 years, wife of Late Bali Mahto Serial Nos. 11 to 14 R/o Village Gidhiya, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, Present Address Devipur, District Deoghar 15. Birma Devi, aged about 32 years, wife of Ashok Yadav, Daughter of Late Bali Mahto, R/o Village Koradih, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar 16. Tukani Devi, aged about 60 years, son of Late Dulo Mahto 17. Pappu Yadav, aged about 35 years, son of Late Rewa Mahto 18. Bhushan Mahto, aged about 37 years, son of Late Bali Mahto 19. Sahdeo Mahto, aged about 60 years, son of Late Chhobi Mahto 20. Nageshwar Mahto, aged about 40 years, son of Late Lakhan Mahto 21. Manu Mahto @ Mani Mahto, aged about 49 years, son of Late Narayan Mahto 2026:JHHC:214 2 Serial Nos. 16 to 21 are R/o Village Gidhiya, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih at Present Devipur, District Deoghar … … Appellants/Appellants/Defendants Versus 1. Chandrika Devi, wife of Hublal Mahto, daughter of Babulal Mahto, resident of village Gidhya, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, present at Devipur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand (deleted & Substituted vide order dated 18.09.2025) 1(a) Hublal Mahto (husband), son of not known to the appellants 1(b) Tapeshwar Yadav, S/o Hublal Mahto and Late Chandrika Devi, both R/o Vill. Dhawana, PO-Pathror, PS-Karon, Distt.-Deoghar 1(c) Lila Devi, D/o Late Chandrika Devi and Hublal Mahto, W/o Naresh Yadav, R/o Vill. Birai, PO-Lukharia, PS-Sarwan, Distt.- Deoghar 1(d) Kabita Devi, D/o Late Chandrika Devi and Hublal Mahto, W/o Binod Mahto, R/o Vill. – Madhwadih, PO-Maheshmunda, PS- Bengabad, Distt.-Giridih 1(e) Rinku Devi, D/o Late Chandrika Devi & Hublal Mahto, W/o Sachin Yadav, R/o Vill.-Gidhiya, PO-Bhojpur, PS-Devipur, Distt.- Deoghar … … Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiff 1st party 2. Lal Mani Devi, daughter of Late Biru Mahto, wife of Huro Mahto, resident of village Dhobna, P.O. & P.S. Karon, Present Margomunda, District Deoghar, Jharkhand 3. Kanchan Kumar (Minor Daughter) 4. Rohit Kumar Yadav (Minor Son) Both serial no. 3 and 4 through next friend Sri Bhagwan Mahto, resident of Village Burhai, P.O. & P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand 5. Ashok Mahto, son of Late Biru Mahto, Resident of village of Burhai, P.O. & P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand 6. Laxmi Mahto, son of Late Biru Mahto, resident of Village of Burhai, P.O. & P.S. Madhupur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand (Respondent No. 5 represented through his brother, respondent no. 4 as natural guardian, resident of Burhai, P.O. & P.S. Madhupur, at present Devipur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand … … Respondents/Respondents/plaintiff 2nd party 2026:JHHC:214 3 7. Yasoda Devi, daughter of Late Upkari Mahto, wife of Baidynath Mahto, 8. Savitri Devi, Daughter of Late Upkari Mahto, wife of Darbari Mahto @ Dinnath Mahto, Respondent nos. 7 & 8 are resident of village Gidhya, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih at present Devipur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand 9. Jitani Devi, daughter of Late Darshan Mahto, resident of village Gidhya, at present Balthar, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih at present Devipur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand 10. Rikhiya Devi, daughter of Late Darshan Mahto, resident of village Gidhya, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar, at present resident of village Jamaniya, P.O. & P.S. Kunda, District Deoghar 11. Mahadeo Mahto, son of Late Fufan Mahto 12. Ghamori Mahto, son of Late Fufan Mahto Respondent nos. 11 & 12 are resident of village Gidhya, P.S. Jasidih, now Devipur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand … … Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiff 3rd Party 13. Gouri Shankar Mahto, son of Late Dulo Mahto 14. Kaushliya Devi, daughter of Late Dulo Mahto 15. Babita Devi, daughter of Late Dulo Mahto Respondent nos. 12 to 15 are resident of village Gidhya, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar, Jharkhand … … Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiff 4th Party 16. Sukhdeo Mahto, son of Jhabu Mahto, resident of village Gidhya, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, at present Devipur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand 17. Chandrika Devi, wife of Late Lakhan Mahto 18. Neeta Devi, daughter of Late Lakhan Mahto 19. Chochu Mahto, son of Late Bhim Mahto 20. Guddu Mahto, son of Late Bali Mahto Serial Nos. 17 to 20 are resident of village Gidhya, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, at present Devipur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand 21. Bijay Yadav, son of Late Rewa Mahto, R/o Panchiyari Kothiya, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar 22. Srikant Yadav, son of Late Chhobi Mahto, R/o village Gidhiya, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar … … Proforma Respondents/Appellants/Defendants --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- 2026:JHHC:214 4 For the Appellants : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the Respondents : --- 16/6th January 2026 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29th February, 2020 (decree signed on 17.03.2020) passed by the learned District Judge-VI, Deoghar in Title Appeal No. 20 of 2011 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment dated 18.05.2011 (decree signed on 26.05.2011) passed by the learned Sub-Judge-II, Deoghar in Title (Partition) Suit No. 401 of 1997. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff to the extent that she is entitled to 1/8th share in the suit property. The judgment was affirmed in 1st appeal and consequently, the defendants are the appellants before this court. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the trial court’s judgment and has submitted that the genealogy filed by the plaintiff-Chandrika Devi has been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the trial court’s judgment. He submits that Jagannath Mahto had four sons is not in dispute. However, as per the genealogy, the fourth son, namely, Babi @ Babulal had two wives, namely, Hawa Devi and Mahwa Devi and the plaintiff claimed that she was the daughter of second wife of Babulal. The learned counsel has submitted that as per the genealogy, the first wife had a son, namely, Budhan who died and therefore the defendants are the descendants of other three sons of Jagannath Mahto. 4. The learned counsel submits that the core dispute which arose in the case was that the defendants claimed that Chandrika Devi was not the daughter of Babulal and therefore the entire suit property belonged to the remaining three sons of Jagannath Mahto and the plaintiff had no right, title and interest with respect to the property involved in the present case. He submits that in such circumstances, it was the case of the defendants that the partition suit at the instance of plaintiff-Chandrika Devi was not maintainable. The learned counsel submits that it was also the case of the 2026:JHHC:214 5 defendants that at the time of marriage with Babulal, Mahwa Devi already had a daughter and therefore Chandrika Devi (the plaintiff) could not be said to be the daughter of Babulal. 5. The learned counsel submits that two points arise for consideration in this case, although there are concurrent findings by both the courts. The 1st point is that both the courts have misconstrued Exhibit-B which was the judgment dated 16.09.1978 passed in Title Suit No. 86/1976, inasmuch as, in the said case in the genealogy, the name of Chandrika Devi was not mentioned, but the name of her brother Budhan was mentioned and the said case was relating to adoption by Budhan. He submits that in the said suit, the adoption by Budhan was held to be null and void. However, it is not in dispute that neither Chandrika Devi was the party in the earlier suit nor the genealogy was directly and substantially in issue in the said case. The 2nd point raised by the appellants is that the relationship of Chandrika Devi was to be seen in the light of Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, but the same has not been properly appreciated. He has further submitted that the court has wrongly cast onus upon the defendants to prove that Chandrika Devi was not the daughter of Babulal. Since Chandrika Devi claimed to be the daughter of Babulal, the onus was on her to prove the same. However, during the course of argument, it has also come to light that it was submitted by the defendants at the 1st appellate stage that Chandrika (plaintiff) was the daughter of Nerho Mahto and upon death of Nerho Mahto, she had come with her mother Mahwa Mahtain as Lagbetta when her mother performed chumman marriage with Babulal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has also indicated that essentially the dispute involved in this case was as to whether the plaintiff was the daughter of Babulal or was the daughter of Nerho Mahto. 2026:JHHC:214 6 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that Chandrika Devi claiming to be the daughter of Babulal through his second wife Mahwa Devi had filed the suit seeking partition of ancestral property. However, it is not in dispute that from the first wife, namely, Hawa Devi, there was no child and it is further not in dispute that Budhan was the son through the second wife of Babulal. Budhan died issueless and the plaintiff Chandrika claimed to be the daughter of Babulal and full sister of Budhan. The defendants were the descendants of the other three brothers of Babulal. 8. The learned trial court had framed the following issues for consideration: - (1) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? (2) Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action? (3) Whether there is any partition by metes and bounds done between the parties? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any share in the suit property? (5) Whether the suit property is a joint property or is it the separate property of the defendants? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any right, title, interest in the suit property and locus to file suit? (7) Whether the suit is within the period of limitation? (8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any relief/relief’s in this court? 9. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidences. 10. The issue nos. 4 and 6 were taken up together by the learned trial court vide paragraph 8 of the judgment and while considering the same, the learned trial court recorded that the main point was as to whether the plaintiff was the daughter of Babulal. The learned court recorded that as per the plaint, the plaintiff claimed that through 1st wife also Babulal had a daughter, namely, Hawa Devi, but this was contradictory to the genealogy which was filed by the plaintiff and in the genealogy filed by the plaintiff, Hawa Devi was shown as the first wife of Babulal. However, as per the plaint, Babulal expired in the year 1958 who left behind his 2nd 2026:JHHC:214 7 wife Mahwa Devi and a son Budhan and two daughters, namely, Hawa Devi and Chandrika Devi. 11. The defendants completely denied the existence of Hawa Devi and they asserted that the plaintiff was the daughter of Nerho Mahto and the mother of the plaintiff, namely, Mahwa Devi was brought into the family by Babulal as his 2nd wife through chumman marriage and at the time of marriage, the plaintiff was lagbeti. Thus, the case of the defendants was that although the mother of the plaintiff was the 2nd wife of Babulal, but the plaintiff was not born out of the wedlock of Babulal and his 2nd wife and the plaintiff was brought by her mother at the time of marriage itself. 12. With the aforesaid background, the learned trial court went on to examine as to whether the plaintiff is the daughter of Babulal and Mahwa Mahtain or she was the daughter of Nerhu Mahto and was brought in the family right at the time of marriage of her mother with Babulal. 13. The learned trial court recorded that it was clear that the plaintiff lived with Babulal and Mahwa Mahtain as their daughter. The learned court also recorded that since the defendants claimed that the plaintiff was not the daughter of Babulal and Mahwa and was the daughter of a third person, namely, Nerho Mahto, therefore, this aspect of the matter was required to be proved by the defendants, but the defendants did not adduce any evidence in this aspect of the matter that the plaintiff was the daughter of Nerho Mahto. Thereafter, the learned trial court considered the oral evidences of the parties and interalia considered the evidence of P.W.-5 Ramdev Mahto, who had stated that he knew Nerho Mahto who was the son of Ganesh and Nerho Mahto had no daughter. P.W.-5 had also stated that Nerho Mahto had no daughter, namely, Chandrika. The evidences of other witnesses were also considered by the learned trial court. The learned court has also considered the assertion of the argument of the learned counsel for the defendants in connection with Title Suit No. 86/1976 where also the genealogy was produced, on the basis of which, it 2026:JHHC:214 8 was argued that in the said genealogy filed in Title Suit No. 86/1976, the name of Chandrika Devi as daughter of Babulal and Mahwa Mahtain was not mentioned. However, the learned trial court was of the view that the genealogy produced in Title Suit No. 86/1976 cannot be relied upon. It is further not in dispute that Title Suit No. 86/1976 was suit relating to challenge of adoption made by Budhan son of Babulal, who had no son. 14. This Court also finds that the learned trial court while considering the evidences on record also considered the provision of Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act and ultimately after fully considering the materials on record held that the plaintiff was the daughter of Babulal and therefore she was entitled to inherit the property. 15. The other issues were also decided in favour of the plaintiff. However, no argument in connection with other issues has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants before this Court. 16. So far as the learned 1st appellate court is concerned, the learned 1st appellate court recorded in paragraph 8 of the judgment that during the course of appeal, number of appellants had entered into compromise/settlement with Chandrika Devi who was respondent no. 1 in 1st appellate court, except appellant nos. 1 and 4 i.e. Sukhdeo Mahto, S/o Late Jhabu Mahto and Chochu Mahto, S/o Late Bhim Mahto and consequently the learned 1st appellate court had no option but to decide the case on merit. 17. The learned 1st appellate court also considered the materials on record including the judgment passed in Title Suit No. 86/1976 and ultimately framed the following point of determination: - “Whether the Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff is the daughter of Babu Lal/Babi Mahto or not?” 18. The learned 1st appellate court also considered the oral and documentary evidences placed on record right from paragraph 12 of the appellate court’s judgment and recorded in paragraph 15 that from perusal 2026:JHHC:214 9 of exhibit-B, one attempt was already made to usurp the property of Babulal Mahto by Dulo Mahto, who was the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant nos. 1 and 4 and ultimately the adoption deed by Budhan Mahto, the full brother of Chandrika (plaintiff) was declared to be null and void. The learned 1st appellate court thereafter in paragraph 17 recorded that the vital issue in the case was as to whether Chandrika Devi was the daughter of Babulal or not. The learned 1st appellate court in paragraph 18 has recorded that the plaintiff as well as the defendants’ witnesses have consistently deposed that Babu @ Babilal was married twice and lived in Gidhayia and the disputed property was IZMAAL property and after the death of his former wife he had one daughter Hawa Devi, then he married with Mahwa Mahtain from whom he had two children Budhan Mahto and Chandrika Devi (the plaintiff). The learned 1st appellate court ultimately arrived at concurrent finding that the Chandrika Devi was the daughter of Babulal Mahto. 19. After going through the judgments passed by both the courts, this Court finds that both the courts have taken into consideration the materials on record to come to a definite finding that the plaintiff was the daughter of Babulal through his 2nd wife. The defendants did not produce any evidence to show that the plaintiff was the daughter of Nerho Mahto. On the other hand, enough evidence was brought on record to establish that the plaintiff was the daughter of Babulal through his 2nd wife. The evidence placed on record revealed that Nerho Mahto had no daughter at all. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that the findings are not in consonance with section 50 of the India Evidence Act is devoid of any merits. 20. So far as Exhibit-B is concerned, this Court is of the view that genealogy in the judgment (exhibit-B) relating to challenge of adoption was rightly not relied upon by the learned courts as the fact as to whether Chandrika Devi was daughter of Babulal or not did not and could not arise for consideration in a case dealing with challenge to adoption of a child by 2026:JHHC:214 10 her full brother, namely, Budhan. Further, there was enough material on record before the learned courts, as discussed above, to come to a positive finding that the plaintiff is the daughter of Babulal. 21. This Court finds that no question of law, much less substantial question of law, is involved in this appeal. Accordingly, this 2nd appeal is hereby dismissed. 22. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 23. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 06.01.2026 Uploaded On:06.02.2026 Mukul/-