1. Jagta Oraon @ Jagdeo Oraon, S/o Late Bahiru Oraon aged about 71 years v. 1.Karma Oraon, S/o late Tila Oraon, aged about 58 years 2. Niraj
Case Details
( 2025:JHHC:34896 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 70 of 2025 1. Jagta Oraon @ Jagdeo Oraon, S/o Late Bahiru Oraon aged about 71 years 2. Sudarshand Oraon, S/o Late Jagan Oraon, aged about 23 years 3. Sanju Oraon, S/o late Jagan Oraon, aged about 20 years 4. Suraj Oraon, S/o late Parichan Oraon, aged about 27 years All by caste Oraon, by occupation-Cultivator, R/o Vill. Itta, P.O. Sithio and District-Lohardaga 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, P.O. P.S. and Dist. Lohardaga … … Appellants/Defendants Versus 1.Karma Oraon, S/o late Tila Oraon, aged about 58 years 2. Niraj Oraon, S/o Late Laita Oraon 3. Anmol Oraon, S/o Late Laita Oraon 4. Radhe Oraon, S/o Late Basudeo Oraon, aged about 55 years All by caste Oraon Scheduled Tribe by occupation-Cultivator, R/o Vill. Itta, P.O. Sithio, P.S. and Dist. Lohardaga … Respondents/Plaintiffs … --- CORAM :HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---
Legal Reasoning
For the Appellants : Mr. Kumar Nilesh, Advocate --- 08/19.11.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 23.08.2024 and (decree dated 02.09.2024) passed by the learned District Judge-I, Lohardaga in Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2022 affirming and confirming the judgement dated 25.02.2022 (decree dated 08.03.2022) passed by the learned Junior Additional Civil Judge, II, Lohardaga in Partition Suit No. 30 of 2015 (arising out of O.S. No. 145/2020). 3. The suit for partition was decreed by the learned Trial Court and the appeal was dismissed. Consequently, the defendants are the appellants before this court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that though there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts that there has been no previous partition, but while recording such finding, the evidence of P.W. 1 namely Radhe Oraon, who was plaintiff no. 3 has not been properly considered. He submits that P.W. 1 had stated in ( 2025:JHHC:34896 ) his cross examination that both the parties were separated in mess and cultivation and they were cultivating separately since the life time of their father and grand-father and therefore it was sufficient to prove that there was previous partition. The learned counsel has submitted that the parties belong to the community of Oraon tribes. The learned counsel submits that though there is presumption of jointness with respect to their family, but the evidence of P.W. 1 was enough to substantiate that there was previous partition. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in 1989 SCC Online Pat 28. 5. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, this court finds that the suit was filed seeking a partition of ‰ interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land of Schedule-A. It was asserted that parties belong to schedule tribes and they are governed by their own customary law for the purposes of succession and inheritance. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant no. 1 to 3 were negotiating to sell the joint family properties and upon asking for partition, the defendants denied and then the suit was filed. 6. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the property was in joint possession and there has never been any partition with respect to the suit property during the lifetime of their ancestors. Even in the re- revisional survey record of rights, the suit was jointly recorded. It was also asserted that the plaintiffs and defendants are cultivating separate lands for the sake of their convenience but they were still in the joint possession of their suit land and there has never been any partition by metes and bounds between the plaintiffs. 7. On the one hand, defendant nos. 1 to 3 asserted that there was no unity of title and unity of possession and there has been previous partition. 8. Following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court which are as under: - 1. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable? 2. Whether the suit is barred by the previous partition? 3. Whether the suit property in present Survey recorded as joint 2 ( 2025:JHHC:34896 ) with equal share? 4. Whether there is any unity of title and possession over the suit property between the parties? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get decree as claimed for and if any? 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any relief or reliefs aş claimed?” 9. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidences. P.W. 1 is the plaintiff no. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the evidence of P.W-1 to submit that on the basis of his evidence it could be said that there was previous partition and his evidence has not been properly examined. 10. Learned trial court recorded that there were contradictory evidence of the plaintiffs and also the defendants and the burden was with the defendants. The evidence of P.W-1 was appreciated as follows: - “First of all it appears from the examination of P.W. 1 who is the plaintiff of this suit and supported his case as he stated that all plaintiff and defendants are the descendants of same ancestor which mentioned by the table of ancestors, plaintiff that they are hold the land as a survey Khatiyani raiyat of the descendant of Sahdeo Oraon and the defendant no. 1,2,3 are the descendant of Bahiru Oraon. He stated further that the Hall Survey Khatian had been made in the name of same ancestor of both parties namely Bahiru Oraon, Suraj Oraon, Basudev Oraon, Sani Oraon and Karma Oraon, plaintiff and defendant no. 1,2,3 cultivated the land separately to which all are the equal right over the suit land but for according to convenience they lived separately, plaintiff and the defendant cultivated their land separately and they did not give the yield of their land to each other, plaintiff and the defendant live separately and also as they fooding and eating separately their business had separate, but the khata number 62 has been Kabjewari Khata in which mentioned separately plot number in the name of ancestors of both parties and Choteya Oraon died issueless and he have three land from the disputed land as khata no. 62 and after he died the defendant has been cultivated the land of Choteya Oraon. He further stated 3 ( 2025:JHHC:34896 ) that in Advasi Oraon, there had been custom of JETHANS and there has given more portion to the elder brother and the defendant are the descendants of Mahadev Oraon. It appears that this plaintiff has supported his version with his supported document as C.C. of R.S. Khata no. 108 has been marked Ext. 1 and C.C. of R.S. Khata No. 62 has been marked Ext. 2 and Malgujari receipt to which the number of 0572916511 dated 26.03.2019 has been marked Ext. 3 which issued still jointly in the name of ancestors of the both parties this version has corroborate from the defendant’s witnesses too that there has been jointly issued rent receipt of the both parties and also the name of ancestors of both parties mentioned in kabjawari khata. As stated by D.W. 1 and D.W. 5 who are the defendant of this suit and also the descendant of same ancestor. 11. While considering the documentary evidences, the learned Trial Court ultimately recorded a finding as under: - to which “It further appears from the document as C. C. of R.S. Khata no. 108 has been marked Ext-1 and C.C. of R.S. Khata No. 62 has been marked Ext-2 and Malgujari receipt is 0572916511 dt. the number 26.03.2019 has been marked Ext-3 where it appears that the khatiyan as 62 mentioned the name of Bahiru Oraon and Surja Oraon, Lalu Oraon and Tila Oraon and Choteya Oraon marked Exhibited-2. And it appears that the khatiyan as 102 mentioned the name of Bahiru oraon, Surja oraon, Basudeo oraon, sani oraon, Karma oraon, Laita Oraon to which marked Exhibited-1 and the rent receipt of this khatiyani raiyat as according to khata no.108 which has been marked Exhibited-3 to which mentioned Rakba 10 acre 68 decmil in the name of Bahiru oraon, Surja oraon, Basudeo oraon, sani oraon, Karma oraon, Laita Oraon. Therefore, in this case it appears that the parties to the suit separated in mess and cultivation and they started cultivating the suit lands separately for the sake of convenience but there was no partition in the family by metes and bounds. It is further that survey records of right where some plots are shown to be in Kabjawari of some parties and some plots in the Kabjawari of other parties and some plots are shown samilat but such Kabjawari was entry never adhered to separately and the joint cultivating merely as per parties are still 4 ( 2025:JHHC:34896 ) convenience and since there was no partition of the family properties by metes and bounds. It is well settled that if a finding of fact is arrived at, ignoring an important piece of evidence such finding cannot be sustained in law. There are plethora of decisions of the apex court in support of his proposition in Radhanath Seal vs. Haripada Jana and others. It is crystal clear that the important documentary evidence (Ext-1 and 2) khatian in respect of khata no 62 and 108 indicating Kabjawari entry which only indicates that by private arrangement different co-sharers were recorded were different plots which could indicate that there was no partition through metes and bounds. It appears further that it is the important piece of documentary evidence showing that property are jointly as samilat and The plaintiff is entitled for half share of land from the suit property. As such this court is of the considered view that the plaintiffs have no any right over the whole ancestral property as it is not proof that there was not partition earlier and the properties have joint in possession. In view of the discussion made above and on consideration of the evidences available on record issue no. III & IV, are also decided in favour of the plaintiffs. This Court finds that the plaintiffs are entitled for such reliefs as claimed. In view of the discussion made in above and in the light of finding of this court on all the issue, it is hereby ordered that the suit is decreed.” 12. Thus, the learned court ultimately recorded that it appeared that the parties to the suit separated in mess and cultivation and they started cultivating the suit lands separately for the sake of convenience but there was no partition in the family by metes and bounds. In the survey record of rights, where some plots have been shown as Kabjawari of some parties and some plots in the Kabjawari of other parties and some plots were shown as samilat, but such Kabjawari entry never adhered to separately and the parties are still jointly cultivating as per convenience and there was no partition in the family by metes and bounds. 13. The learned 1st appellate court framed the point for determination in paragraph 14 which are as under: - 5 ( 2025:JHHC:34896 ) “Whether there is unity of title and jointness of possession between the parties to the suit with regard to the suit lands” 14. The learned 1st Appellate Court also considered the materials on record and gave concurrent findings based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidences on record. 15. This court finds that the learned 1st appellate court also considered the materials on record and after due discussion clearly held that there was no previous family partition by metes and bound between the parties or their ancestors and there was unity of title and jointness of possession with respect to the suit land and ultimately dismissed the appeal. 16. So far as the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in 1989 SCC Online Pat 28 is concerned, the same does not apply in this case in as much as in the said case, the defendant was able to adequately prove on the basis of materials on record that there was previous partition and this was fortified by the fact that parties have been selling property by referring each to be their own share in the property. The defendants in the said case proved that there was previous partition. So far as the present case is concerned, the courts have recorded a clear finding that though the parties to the suit were separated in mess and cultivation and they started cultivating the suit lands separately for the sake of convenience, but there was no partition in the family by metes and bounds. This court finds that the defendants have failed to prove that there was previous partition when seen in the light of oral and documentary evidences including the evidence of the P.W-1 (Plaintiff no. 3) as fully discussed by the learned Trial Court and the learned 1st Appellate Court. 17. This court is of the considered view that both the courts have taken into consideration both oral and documentary evidences and have come to a finding that there was no previous partition. Both the judgments are well considered judgments and this court is of the view that there is no question of law, much less any substantial question of law is involved in this case. 18. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. 6 ( 2025:JHHC:34896 ) Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 19. 20. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX. Dated: 19/11/2025 Uploaded on 02.02.2026 Binit (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 7