Jharkhand High Court
Doman Mahto vs Praveen Mahto on 14 July, 2022
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 173 of 2016
-----
1. Doman Mahto
2. Most. Sukru Devi
3. Most. Rewati Devi
4. Sukhdeo Mahto
5. Gobardhan Mahto
6. Ashuman Mahto
7. Most. Lenkeya .... Appellant(s) Versus
1. Praveen Mahto
2. Biren Mahto
3. Haradhan Mahto
4. Taru Devi
5. Khairan Mahto
6. Deyal Mahto
7. Ishwar Mahto
8. Budhram Mahto
9. Rewti Devi
10. Ayodhya Mahto
11. Rameshwar Mahto
12. Gahesh Mahto
13. Radha Mahto
14. Mahesh Mahto
15. Parmeshwar Mahto
16. Jageshwar Mahto
17. Dileshwar Mahto
18. Shibeshwar Mahto
19. Rameshwar Mahto
20. Kalamani Devi
21. Parwarti Devi
22. Radhi Devi
23. Soni Devi
24. Ramani Devi
25. Dinbandhu Mahto
26. Malo Devi
27. Jagmohan Mahto
28. Mahabir Mahto
29. Bir Singh Mahto
30. Dhananjay Mahto
31. Harihar Mahto
32. Peter Mahto
33. Umesh Mahto
34. Mado Devi
35. Dhan Singh Mahto
36. Lal Singh Mahto
37. Manju Devi
38. Fulkumari Devi
39. Stmati Devi
40. Ganesh Mahto
41. Ram Nath Mahto
42. Rajesh Mahto
43. Fulkumari
44. Basmati Kumari
45. Deoki Devi
46. Radha Mohan Mahto -2-
47. Manmohan Mahto
48. Tejnandan Mahto
49. Most. Saraswati
50. Most. Biras Devi
51. Pallavi Kumari
52. Smt. Prabha Devi
53. Smt. Rambha Devi
54. Usha Kumari
55. Jayanti Kumari
56. Urmila Kumari
57. Gudhar Mahto
58. Sundra Mahto
59. Dani Daeyal Oraon
60. Krishna Oraon
61. Sai Oraon
62. Aghnu Oraon
63. Etwa Oraon .... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
-----
For the appellant(s): Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, Advocate.
------
10/14.07.2022: Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment dated 19.12.2015 and decree signed on 4.1.2016 passed by the Addl. Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi, whereby Title Appeal No. 32 of 2009/Trial No. 05 of 2014 has been dismissed confirming the judgment dated 28.1.2009 and decree signed on 9.2.2009 passed by the learned Munsif, Khunti in Partition Suit No. 10/2002. .
3. The suit was filed by the appellants herein praying for partition of the properties mentioned in the schedule. It is their case that the properties are joint properly of ancestor of plaintiffs and defendants, which needs to be partitioned.
4. Evidences were led and after considering the evidences, the trial court came to conclusion that it is admitted by the parties that the suit properties were the subject matter of the Partition Suit No. 43/1945 contested amongst the ancestor of the parties. Preliminary decree in Title (Partition) Suit No. 43/1945 was already passed defining share of each of the parties and final decree proceeding started. The Pleader Commissioner thereafter already allocated distinct shares to the parties and submitted a report to the Court, but final decree is yet to be prepared/not prepared.
5. Thus, on the admitted fact, the trial court held that the land, which already stood partitioned by preliminary degree of a Court cannot be partitioned again. The Appellate Court arrived at same finding on the facts of the case and -3- dismissed the appeal.
6. From the argument advanced I find that it is admitted fact that the ancestors of the appellants and the defendants were parties to the Partition Suit No. 43/1945 involving the self same land, which is the subject matter of this Suit. The Partition Suit was allowed and the land involved in the said Partition Suit was partitioned by metes and bound amongst the parties in the aforesaid suit. It is also admitted that the preliminary decree was prepared and thereafter the Pleader Commissioner was appointed. It is also admitted that the Pleader Commissioner allocated distinct share to the parties as per the preliminary decree.
7. The subject matter of this partition suit is exactly the same which was that of the Partition Suit No. 43 of 1945. Once the said property already stood partitioned and divided by metes and bound amongst the ancestors of the plaintiff and defendant. Same land cannot be partitioned again amongst the heirs of the plaintiff and defendant of Partition Suit No. 43/1945. It is not the case that one branch of the earlier parties are praying for partition of the properties which fell in their share in Partition Suit No. 43/1945.
6. Thus, I find that both the courts below have rightly dismissed the suit and the appeal. I further find no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
Anu/-C.P.2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)