RANCHI, India, Feb. 7 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Jan. 6:

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 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 1 st 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.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=U%2BbhtlrLe2adAHN8Tz%2F1d49G7h%2BcJ8gGHWVXOjeESDiABU2NZDPSlMaMqf52l4Sd&caseno=SA/254/2020&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010327102020&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.