( 2026:JHHC:10612 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 83 of 2012 1. Sarla Devi wife of Ghasi Ram Mahto, resident of village Powadiri, P.O. Reladih, Police Station Sonahatu, District Ranchi. 2. Guhi Ram Mahto son of Sawna Mahto, resident of village Powadiri, P.O. Reladih, Police Station Sonahatu, District Ranchi. 3. Lakhi Mani Devi wife of Late Khetro Mohan Mahto 4. Nand Lal Mahto son of Late Khetro Mohan Mahto 5. Gokul Mahto son of Late Khetro Mohan Mahto 6. Anand Mahto son of Late Khetro Mohan Mahto 7. Raj Kumar Mahto son of Late Khetro Mohan Mahto all residents of village Jintu Tola, Purana Powadiri, P.O. Reladih, P.S. Sonahatu, District Ranchi 8. Taru Bala daughter of Late Khetro Mohan Mahto and wife of Biseshwar Mahto of village Kudadih, P.O. Danadih, P.S. Sonahatu, District Ranchi 9. Sabya Devi daughter of Late Khetro Mohan Mahto of village and P.O. Sataki, P.S. Angara, District Ranchi 10. Yogeshwar Mahto son of Late Sam Ray Mahto 11. Maheswar Mahto son of Late Sam Ray Mahto 12. Dhaneshwar Mahto son of Late Sam Ray Mahto 13. Sheo Charan Mahto son of late Sam Ray Mahto all residents of village Powadiri, P.O. Reladih, P.S. Sonahatu, District Ranchi. 14.Sari Bala, daughter of Late Samray Mahto and wife of Bhavtaran Mahto of village Paramdih, P.O. Buradih, P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi. 15. Naresh Mahto son of Late Labodhan Mahto 16. Bhuneshwar Mahto son of Late Labodhan Mahto both residents of village Jintu, Tola Purana Powadiri, P.O. Reladih, P.S. Sonahatu, District Ranchi 17. Manjura Devi daughter of Late Labodhan Mahto and wife of Sristidhar Mahto, resident of village Tilmi Sereng, P.O. Bansia, P.S. Silli, District Ranchi. 18. Manda Devi daughter of Late Labodhan Mahto and wife of Sri Kunj Lal Mahto, resident of village Madandih, P.O. Jamudag, P.S. Sonahatu, District Ranchi. 19. Shanti Devi daughter of Late Labodhan Mahto, resident of village Jareya, P.O. and P.S. Sonahatu, District Ranchi ( 2026:JHHC:10612 ) 2 20. Pushpa Devi daughter of Late Ghasi Ram Mahto and wife of Kanhai Mahto, resident of village Lupung, P.O. Gondlipokhar, P.S. Angara, District Ranchi. 21. Bindo Devi daughter of Late Khetro Mohan Mahto, resident of village Sataki, P.O. and P.S. Angara, District Ranchi ………….Appellants Versus 1. Rajkishore Mahto son of Late Mohan Mahito, resident of Village Daruwara, P.O. and P.S. Tamar, District Ranchi Mohan Mahto son of Late Dhani Ram Mahto 2. Sumitra Devi wife of Sri Ganesh Mahto and daughter of Late Mohan Mahto, resident of village Bhakuadih, P.O. and P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi. 3. Usha Devi wife of Sri Premnath Mahto and daughter of Late Mohan Mahto, resident of village Pedadih, P.O. and P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi. 4. Rambha Devi wife of Sri Bharat Mahto and daughter prod of Late Mohan Mahto, resident of Pedadih, P.O. and P.S Bundu, District Ranchi. 5. Yagya Bala Devi wife of Late Trilok Mahto 6. Nagendra Mahto son of late Trilok Mahto 7. Tarani Mahto son of Late Trilok Mahto, all resident of village Daruara, P.O. Baredih, P.S. Tamar, District Ranchi. 8. Shanti Bala daughter of Trilok Mahto, resident of village Danadih, P.O. Danadih, P.O. and P.S. Sonahatu, District Ranchi. 9. Basanti Bala daughter of Trilok Mahto, resident of Pirand village Turkibera, P.S. Sonahatu, District Ranchi. 10. Bharti Bala daughter of Trilok Mahto and wife of Sripati Mahto of village Heth Buradih, P.O. Buradih, P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi. 11. Shasti Bala Devi, daughter of Trilok Mahto of village Rahe Nawagaon Barai Kocha, P.O. and P.S Sonahatu, District Ranchi. 12. Nuni Bala daughter of Late Dhani Ram and wife of Duti Krishna Mahto of village Ulilohar, P.O. Ulilohar, P.S. Tamar, District Ranchi. 13. Smt. Bari Mahtoain wife of Bishwanath Mahto, resident of village Jintu, Tola Punardag, P.O. and P.S Sonahatu, District Ranchi 14. Mohan Mahto son of Late Niranjan Mahto, resident of village Powadiri, P.O. Reladih, P.S. Sonahatu, District Ranchi. 15 Sarla wife of Ghasi Mahto, resident of village Poard Datamda, P.O. and P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi. 16. Lalo wife of Ghanshyam Mahto, resident of village Edalhatu, P.O. and P.S. Bundu, District Ranchi ……………. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate ( 2026:JHHC:10612 ) 3 For the Resp. Nos.:- 1, 2, 3, 4, 12 and 13:- Mr. H.K. Mahato, Advocate Mrs. Ahalya Mahato, Advocate Ms. Jyotsna Mahato, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 5 to 11:- Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate Mr. Shubham Malviya, Advocate For Resp. Nos. 14, 15 and 16:- Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mrs. Nanda Kumari, Advocate For the Respondents : 17/Dated: 15/04/2026 Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. H.K. Mahato, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 12 and 13, Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 to 11 and Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 14, 15 and 16. 2. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2012 (decree signed on 01.06.2012) passed by learned District Judge XII, Ranchi dismissing the Title Appeal No. 140 of 2007 and confirming the final decree dated 02.08.2007 (decree signed on 08.08.2007) passed by the Munsif, Khunti in Partition Suit No. 109 of 1979. 3. The plaintiffs/respondents instituted Title Suit no. 109/79 against the defendants for cancellation of sale deed dated 23.3.1979 executed by plaintiffs in favour of the defendants with respect to the land described in schedule A to the plaint and for partition of half share of the land described in Schedule- B of the plaint and for passing a preliminary decree accordingly and after appointing a survey knowing Pleader Commissioner separate takhta with respect to their half share be prepared and the decree be made final. The said suit was contested by the defendants/ appellants. Defendant No. 3, Lil Mohan Mahto supported the claim of the plaintiffs. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 12.2.1983 giving specific finding that while allotting separate takhta by the Pleader Commissioner maximum convenience of both the parties shall be taken into consideration. 4. Aggrieved with the said judgment and decree the some of the defendants preferred First Appeal no. 54 of 1983 before the Hon'ble High Court ( 2026:JHHC:10612 ) 4 of Patna in its Ranchi Bench. The said appeal was dismissed on 20.5.1997. Thereafter L.P.A. no. 302 of 1997 was filed before the High Court which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 17.7.2002. 5. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiffs filed a petition on 23.1.2003 in the above suit for appointment of a Pleader Commissioner and a Pleader Commissioner was appointed for carving out separate takhta with respect to half share of the plaintiffs over the suit land. He also submits that in the preliminary decree there was clear direction that in partitioning of land the Pleader Commissioner shall take into consideration the maximum convenience of both the parties concerned. The Pleader Commissioner submitted his report dated 10.4.2005 in the court on 15.4.2005 which was in absence of the defendants/appellants which was accepted by order dated 29.6.2007 and accordingly final decree was prepared on 2.8.2007. 6. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the report of the pleader commissioner was accepted without hearing the appellants herein and in that view of the matter that law point for admitting the present second appeal. He also submits that correct valuation has not been assessed by the pleader commissioner that is also law point for admitting the present second appeal. On these grounds, he submits that this second appeal may kindly be admitted. 7. Admittedly, Title Suit no. 109/79 was decreed by judgment and decree dated 12.2.1983. The Title Appeal No. 140 of 2007 prerferred by the appellants/defendants has been dismissed by judgment and decree dated 17.05.2012 (decree signed on 01.06.2012) by learned District Judge XII, Ranchi The First Appeal No. 54 of 1983(a) preferred by the defendants/appellant has been dismissed on 20.05.1997 and thereafter L.P.A. no. 302 of 1997 was filed which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 17.7.2002. ( 2026:JHHC:10612 ) 5 8. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The Partition Suit No. 109/79 was brought by the plaintiffs/respondents for a preliminary decree of partition regarding half share of the plaintiffs in the suit property as detailed in the schedule of the plaint and also for cancellation of sale deed dated 23.03.1979 executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant in respect of half share of the land as detailed in the Schedule A of the plaint. The learned court has ordered that the suit be decreed on contest with costs and the sale deed in question declared void and was cancelled. The decree for partition of half sharer of the plaintiffs was also passed and accordingly direction was issued to prepare a preliminary decree the plaintiff was directed to take step to get pleader commissioner appointed to carve out the share and pursuant to that pleader commissioner was appointed and share has been divided. 9. The point was argument before the learned First Appellate Court by the appellants herein with regard to the appointment of pleader commissioner and not providing the notice and the said ground has been argued before this Court also. 10. From the judgment of the First Appellate Court, it transpires that the learned court has found from the report of the Advocate’s Commissioner that Advocate Commissioner sent notices to the appellants/defendants twice for participation in the takhtabandi. So far as objection raised regarding non- preparation of filed book and non-preparation of fixed point was concerned, the learned first appellate court found from the report that the Advocate Commissioner has taken into consideration the area of the plot for partition and for preparation of which a filed book or fixed point was at all not necessary. So far as valuation of property is concerned, the learned first appellate court has found that Advocate Commissioner’s report specifically pointed out that the Advocate Commissioner fixed values of the and as per their quality and separate values has been given to separate qualities of the land and it has been ( 2026:JHHC:10612 ) 6 stated that as the other lands are concerned with the said land it will be of the same value. The learned first appellate court has also found that the point has been raised by the appellants regarding exclusive possession of the land by the defendants/appellants, however, from the petition of the appellants the learned first appellate court has found that no specific details regarding possession of the land has been given and the matter was never raised by the appellants/defendants at any stage of the case and not even before the first appellate court 11. The learned first appellate court has also found that the appellants failed to state at any stage of the case that a common tank used by both of the parties has been given separately to the plaintiff even at this stage and the details of the land where taken is situated has not been given. Furthermore, the argument was also advanced by the appellants before the learned first appellate court that judgment was passed against the dead person and the learned first appellate court found that the legal representatives of Shanti Devi has already been substituted and in view of that the said submission of the appellants was not correct before the learned first appellate court. The error occurred with regard to plot number has also been rectified by the learned trial court which has been further noted by the learned first appellate court and thereafter the title appeal has been dismissed affirming the judgment of learned trial court. 12. It also transpires from the judgment of the learned first appellate court that the appellants herein were provided several opportunities to make any objection. However, no objection to preparation of final decree and allotment of takhta was made by the appellants herein 13. The partition suit is of the year, 1979 and at the time of passing of the judgment of the learned first appellate court a time of 33 years have already passed. Meaning thereby that now 46 years have already elapsed and ( 2026:JHHC:10612 ) 7 both the sides have been given equal share. This is partition suit only and decree has already executed and in that view of the matter also there is no substantial question of law involved in the present second appeal. There is no perversity in the judgements of both the learned courts. The points argued herein for admitted the second appeal has been rightly dealt with by the learned courts. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and sitting under section 100 of the C.P.C., the High Court is not required to admit this second appeal in absence of any substantial question of law and accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed. Pending, I.A., if any, stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dt. 15.04.2026 Satyarthi/A.F.R