Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 67 (JHR)

Harihar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2020-01-14

DEEPAK ROSHAN, H.C.MISHRA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5, 9 and 10. 2. The other private respondents have not yet appeared. Respondent Nos. 11 and 14 have died and accordingly, I.A. No. 5265 of 2019 has been filed for substitution of the deceased respondents by their heirs and legal representatives. As the substitution petition has been filed beyond the period of limitation, I.A. No. 5266 of 2019 has been filed for condonation of the delay. However, in view of the order that is being passed in this case, we do not think it necessary to keep the matter pending for substitution of the deceased respondents and awaiting the appearance of other respondents and the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondents. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants on merit as well. 3. This appeal is directed against the impugned Judgment dated 21.1.2016, passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(C) No. 7058 of 2013, whereby the writ application, filed by the appellants writ petitioners, challenging the order dated 31.3.2012 in Title Revision No. 3 of 1993, passed by the Divisional Commissioner of Santhal Pargana, Dumka, has been dismissed by the Writ Court. 4. The appellants in the present appeal are challenging the family arrangement made in their family in the year 1964, which was also registered and published in the district on 9.1.1964. The case relates to partition of the ancestral property, and according to the relevant genealogy of the appellants, one Bisu Mahto had died leaving behind his two sons Phulku Mahto and Gudku Mahto. Gudku Mahto died leaving behind his two sons Puran Mahto and Saibu Mahto. Phulku Mahto died leaving behind his two daughters and the appellants are the sons of one of the daughters of Phulku Mahto. There was a family arrangement between Phulku Mahto and Puran Mahto in the year 1964, after both the daughters of Phulku Mahto were married and settled at their in-laws' place. After the death of Phulku Mahto in the year 1965, his daughters, i.e., the mother of the appellants and her sister, namely, Most. Naraini Devi and Murti Devi, filed a partition suit before the Settlement Officer-cum-S.D.O, Godda, which was registered as T. (P). Suit No. 27 of 1968 / 2 of 1971. However, the plaint of suit was returned by the Court on 29.6.1971. Naraini Devi and Murti Devi, filed a partition suit before the Settlement Officer-cum-S.D.O, Godda, which was registered as T. (P). Suit No. 27 of 1968 / 2 of 1971. However, the plaint of suit was returned by the Court on 29.6.1971. Thereafter after more than 10 years, for the same cause of action, another title suit, being T. (P). Suit No. 93 of 1982, was filed, which the Court dismissed on the ground that it was filed after 12 years and hence it was time barred. Against the judgment in T. (P). Suit No. 93 of 1982, Title Appeal No. 20 of 1987 was also filed, which was also dismissed by judgment dated 6.11.1992. Challenging the said judgment, the Title Revision No. 3 of 1993 was filed before the Divisional Commissioner, Dumka, which was also dismissed by the order dated 31.3.2012. Aggrieved thereby, the writ application being W.P.(C) No. 7058 pf 2013 was filed by the appellants. 5. It is an admitted fact that in all these title suits / appeal / revision, the main challenge was to the partition deed dated 9.1.1964, which was a registered deed by way of family arrangement, claiming the same to be forged and fabricated, and at least not containing the signature of the mother of the appellants. Admittedly, the mother of the appellants had challenged the same in the year 1968 itself, by filing T. (P). Suit No. 27 of 1968 / 2 of 1971, and the plaint was returned on 29.6.1971. Thereafter nothing was filed till more than 10 years and subsequently, another Title Suit No. 93 of 1982 was filed, which was dismissed as barred by limitation. The challenges to this judgment have also been dismissed by the Appellate Court as well as Revisional Court, i.e., the Divisional Commissioner, Dumka. 6. In the backdrop of these facts, the Hon'ble Single Judge has held that before the family settlement dated 1.9.1964 was executed, the mother of the writ petitioners was settled in her in-laws' place and in the proceeding before the Court below, she failed to produce the evidence, disclosing her possession over any part of her father's property and on this there was concurrent findings of the Courts below that the family arrangement deed dated 9.1.1964 was genuine. The Hon'ble Single Judge, accordingly, held that there was no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Courts below and dismissed the writ application. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned Judgment passed by the Writ Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in view of the fact that the share of the daughters of Phulku Mahto in the ancestral property was denied, and thus the partition suit, which was having a continuous cause of action till the suit was filed in the year 1982, was illegally dismissed as time barred. 8. We do not find any merit in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants, inasmuch as, in effect the family arrangement dated 9.1.1964 was challenged claiming it to be a forged and fabricated document, and there is concurrent findings of the Courts below that this document was a registered document and is genuine one, which could not be interfered by the writ Court. 9. We do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, worth any interference in exercise the L.P.A. jurisdiction. As such, we do not find any justification for keeping this matter pending for substitution of the deceased respondents Nos. 11 and 14 or for appearance of the other respondents. 10. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, in limine. The pending interlocutory applications also stand dismissed.