Patna High Court

Harishankar SinghversusRameshwar Singh and Ors

Decided: 5 January 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: KHATIM REZA

Holding

The appellate court held that the 1963 partition deed was vitiated by fraud on the minor plaintiffs and therefore void, and that the lands purchased by Ujagir Singh were joint family property, confirming the plaintiffs’ entitlement to a one‑third share.

Summary

The case arose from Title Suit No. 218 of 2004 filed by the plaintiffs seeking partition of their one‑third share in Schedule‑IV land and a declaration that the registered partition deed of 08‑08‑1963 was void. The plaintiffs alleged that the deed, executed when they were minors, was fraudulently effected by the ancestor Ramayan Mahto, who acted as their guardian, resulting in an inequitable allocation of shares. The defendant‑2 set contended that the deed was valid and that certain lands purchased by their ancestor Ujagir Singh in 1924 and 1942 were self‑acquired. The trial court upheld the deed’s validity and barred the claim on limitation; the first appellate court reversed, finding fraud and declaring the deed void, and also held the purchased lands to be joint family property. On second appeal, the High Court affirmed the appellate findings, holding the partition deed void for fraud and the lands joint family property, thereby confirming the plaintiffs’ entitlement to a one‑third share and dismissing both appeals.

Issues considered

Whether the registered partition deed dated 08‑08‑1963 is void and inoperative due to fraud on the minor plaintiffs.
Whether the lands purchased by Ujagir Singh in 1924 and 1942 are self‑acquired property or joint family property.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a one‑third share in the Schedule‑IV land.
Whether the limitation period bars a challenge to the 1963 partition deed.
Whether the appellate court erred in its findings of fact regarding genealogy and ownership.

Legislation cited

Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 — s. 10(2)

Subjects

partition
joint family property
self‑acquired property
fraud on minors
limitation
cadastral survey
registered partition deed
metes and bounds

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SECOND APPEAL No.477 of 2017
======================================================
Harishankar Singh son of late Dhanpat Singh, R/o vill. Pawanee, P.S. Buxar
(M) Dist. Buxar
... ... Defendant 2nd set-respondent 2nd set- Appellant
Versus
1. Rameshwar Singh
2. Sumeshwar Singh
Both son of Madho Singh R/o vill. Pawanee, P.S. Buxar (M), Dist. Buxar.
... ... Plaintiff- Appellant-Respondent 1st set
3. Most. Rajraniya Devi, Wife of Late Sudama Singh.
4. Ramashankar Singh, Son of Late Sudama Singh.
5. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Son of Late Sudama Singh.
All resident of Village- Pawanee, P.S. Buxar (M), District- Buxar.
. ...Defendant 2nd set-Respondent 2nd set-Respondent 2nd set
6. Chandrashekhar Singh.
7. Arimardan Singh.
8. Shri Hari Singh.
9. Dhanusdhari Singh.
All Sons of Late Chandrika Singh, resident of Village- Pawanee, P.S.-Buxar
(M), District- Buxar.
10. Ramawati Devi, Wife of Sudarshan Singh, resident of Village + P.O.
Mangraon P.S. Rajpur, District- Buxar.
11. Vinda Devi, Wife of Shubhnarayan Singh.
Resident of Village + PO Dastepur, District Gazipur (U.P.).
. ….Defendant 1st set-Respondent 1st set-Respondent 3rd set.
12. Angad Singh
13. Brijmohan Singh
14. Jagmohan Singh
15. Bhagwat Singh
All 12 to 15 are sons of late Dhanpat Singh R/o vill. Pawanee PS Buxar
(M), Dist. Buxar.
.. … Defendant 2nd Set- respondent 2nd Set- Respondent 4th Set.
16. Inerwasiya Devi D/o late Dhanpat Singh w/o sri Bhagawan Singh R/o
vill. Dahiwar P.S. Buxar (M), Dist. Buxar.
.. … Defendant 2nd Set- respondent 2nd Set- Respondent 4th Set.
======================================================
with
SECOND APPEAL No. 476 of 2017
======================================================
Harishankar Singh, son of late Dhanpat Singh, resident of village Pawanee,
P.S. Buxar (M), Dist. Buxar

... ... Defendant 2nd set- Appellant
Versus
1. Rameshwar Singh
2. Sumeshwar Singh
Both son of Madho Singh R/o vill. Pawanee, P.S. Buxar (M), Dist. Buxar.
... ... Plaintiff- Respondent 1st set-Respondent 1st set
3. Most. Rajraniya Devi, Wife of Late Sudama Singh.
4. Ramashankar Singh, Son of Late Sudama Singh.
Patna High Court SA No.477 of 2017(7) dt.05-01-2026
2/21

5. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Son of Late Sudama Singh.
All resident of Village- Pawanee, P.S. Buxar (M), District- Buxar.
. ...Defendant 2nd set-Respondent 2nd set-Respondent 2nd set

6. Chandrashekhar Singh.
7. Arimardan Singh.
8. Shri Hari Singh.
9. Dhanusdhari Singh.
All Sons of Late Chandrika Singh, resident of Village- Pawanee, P.S.-Buxar
(M), District- Buxar.
10. Ramawati Devi, Wife of Sudarshan Singh, resident of Village + P.O.
Mangraon P.S. Rajpur, District- Buxar.
11. Vinda Devi, Wife of Shubhnarayan Singh.
Resident of Village + PO Dastepur, District Gazipur (U.P.).
. ….Defendant 1st set-Respondent 1st set-Respondent 3rd set.
12. Angad Singh
13. Brijmohan Singh
14. Jagmohan Singh
15. Bhagwat Singh
All 12 to 15 are sons of late Dhanpat Singh R/o vill. Pawanee PS Buxar
(M), Dist. Buxar.
.. … Defendant 2nd Set- respondent 2nd Set- Respondent 4th Set.

======================================================
Appearance :
(In SECOND APPEAL No. 477 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Kuber Pathak, Advocate
For the Respondent/s :
(In SECOND APPEAL No. 476 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Kuber Pathak, Advocate
For the Respondent/s :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
ORAL ORDER
7 05-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant in both the

appeals.

2. These two appeals arise out of Title Suit No. 218 of

2004, which was instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents 1 st set

for partition of their one-third share in Schedule-IV land of the

plaint carving out of their share through appointment of a

Survey-Knowing Pleader Commissioner and also for a

declaration that the registered partition deed dated 08.08.1963 is
Patna High Court SA No.477 of 2017(7) dt.05-01-2026
3/21

void, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiffs.

3. Second Appeal No. 477 of 2017 has been preferred by

the defendant 2nd set (appellant) against the judgment and decree

dated 17.06.2017 passed by the learned Additional District and

Sessions Judge-6, Buxar in Title Appeal No. 49 of 2008 (filed

by the plaintiffs), whereby the judgment and decree dated

22.09.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-

I, Buxar in Title Suit No. 218 of 2004 were reversed.

4. Second Appeal No. 476 of 2017 has also been preferred

by the defendant 2nd set (appellant) against the judgment and

decree dated 17.06.2017 passed by the learned Additional

District and Sessions Judge-6, Buxar in Title Appeal No. 81 of

2009 whereby the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2008 passed

by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Buxar in Title

Suit No. 218 of 2004 were affirmed against the defendant 2nd

set.

5. Second Appeal Nos. 477 of 2017 and 476 of 2017 have

been heard together at the admission stage.

6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the

genealogical table given in Schedule-I of the plaint shows that

the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendants,

namely Sadhu Singh had two sons, Ugrah Singh and Raghunath
Patna High Court SA No.477 of 2017(7) dt.05-01-2026
4/21

Singh. Ugrah Singh had two sons, namely, Sheo Mohan Singh

and Deo Singh, both of whom died issueless just after the

cadastral survey leaving behind Raghunath Singh as the

surviving coparcener. It is further pleaded that Raghunath Singh

had five sons, namely Ujagir Singh, Ramadhari Singh, Ram

Sakhi Singh, Laljee Singh and Ram Krit Singh. Out of them,

Ramadhari Singh and Laljee Singh died issueless living jointly

with their remaining brothers. Consequently, the surviving

descendants of Sadhu Singh, namely Ujagir Singh, Ram Sakhi

Singh and Ram Krit Singh came into joint possession of the

ancestral lands. The plaintiffs are the heirs of Ram Sakhi Singh.

Defendant no. 1, Chandrika Singh, is the son of Ram Krit Singh

and the defendant 2nd set are the descendants of Ujagir Singh.

Thus, the plaintiffs- defendant 1st set and defendant 2nd set are

each entitled to one-third share in the Schedule-IV land of the

plaint. It is further pleaded that the cadastral survey khatiyans

were prepared showing entries in the names of Sheo Mohan

Koeri and Deo Koeri, sons of Ugrah Singh (Koeri), jointly for

two shares and also in the names of Ujagir Singh ( Koeri),

Ramadhari Koeri, Ram Sakhi Koeri, Laljee Koeri and Ram Krit

Koeri sons of Raghunath Koeri, equally. The parties are in joint

possession over the suit land according to their respective shares
Patna High Court SA No.477 of 2017(7) dt.05-01-2026
5/21

and no partition by metes and bounds ever took place prior to

the institution of the suit. It is further pleaded that the father of

the plaintiffs died prior to the year 1963, when the plaintiffs

were minors and their mother, Chandradewa Devi was alive.

She subsequently died on 18.07.2001. While the plaintiffs were

minors, the ancestors of the defendant 1st set and defendant 2nd

set in collusion with each other executed a registered partition

deed dated 08.08.1963 in respect of the ancestral properties,

wherein, the names of the plaintiffs were included as minors

under the purported guardianship of Ramayan Mahto, father of

the defendant 2nd set, without the knowledge or consent of the

plaintiffs or their mother. By virtue of the said deed, the

defendant 1st set was allotted half share while the plaintiffs and

the defendant 2nd set were allotted 1/4th share each.

7. It is further pleaded that on the basis of the said

registered partition deed, the names of the parties were

separately recorded in the possessory column of the revisional

survey record of rights, although no partition by metes and

bounds ever took place between the parties prior to the

institution of the suit. The said registered partition deed is

alleged to be void and inoperative. On the basis of the said void

deed, the revisional survey khatiyan and the chakbandi khatiyan
Patna High Court SA No.477 of 2017(7) dt.05-01-2026
6/21

were prepared. It is further stated that the plaintiffs filed

objections under Section 10(2) of the Bihar Consolidation of

Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 ( for short

‘the Act’) and thereafter instituted C.W.J.C.No. 2108 of 2000

before this Court. This Court, by order dated 30.06.2004, has

held that the dispute relates to civil jurisdiction and the

Consolidation Authorities have no jurisdiction over the matter

and the aggrieved party is at liberty to institute a suit before the

Civil Court. This Court further observed that the orders passed

by the Consolidation Authorities would not prejudice the

adjudication by the Civil Court. Pursuant to the aforesaid order

of this Court, the plaintiffs requested the defendants to consider

the registered partition deed dated 08.08.1963 as void and

inoperative and to effect partition of their 1/3rd share in the suit

land by metes and bounds. However, as the defendants failed

and refused to accept the said request, the plaintiffs were

constrained to institute the present suit.

8. On summons, the defendant 2nd set ( defendant nos. 3

to 5) appeared and filed their written statement separately. They

admitted the genealogical table given by the plaintiffs in

Schedule-I of the plaint. They further pleaded that no deed of

partition was ever executed in their family and their ancestor,
Patna High Court SA No.477 of 2017(7) dt.05-01-2026
7/21

Ramayan Mahto was never the guardian of the plaintiffs. It has

been specifically pleaded that their ancestor, Ujagir Singh had

purchased the land appertaining to Khata No. 726, C.S. Plot No.

1519 measuring 1 acre 15 decimals; C.S. Khata No. 410, C.S.

Plot No. 1254 measuring 5 kathas; C.S. Plot No. 1281

measuring 3½ kathas; and C.S. Plot No. 1250 measuring 3½

kathas through registered sale deeds dated 06-06-1924 and

29-05-1942 out of his personal income. They asserted that the

said lands were the self-acquired property of Ujagir Singh. It is

further pleaded that after the death of Ujagir Singh, the

defendant 2nd set came in separate possession of the aforesaid

purchased lands, which have been fully described in Schedule-I

of their written statement. They have also pleaded that after

excluding the lands mentioned in Schedule-I of their written

statement the remaining properties described in Schedule-III of

the plaint are ancestral properties, in which the plaintiffs are

entitled to 1/3rd share.

9. Defendant No. 1 has also appeared and filed a separate

written statement, wherein, he has denied the genealogical table

given by the plaintiffs in the plaint, stating that the same is

wholly incorrect and inconsistent with the genealogical table

earlier given by the plaintiffs in the consolidation proceedings,
Patna High Court SA No.477 of 2017(7) dt.05-01-2026
8/21

namely Consolidation Case No. 66 of 1978–79 as well as in the

amendment petition filed therein in September 1978. According

to the genealogy given by the plaintiffs in the Consolidation

proceedings, Ugrah Mahto had four sons, namely Sheo Mohan

Mahto, Deo Mahto, Raghunath Mahto and Hukum Mahto.

Raghunath Mahto had three sons, namely Ujagir Mahto,

Ramadhari Mahto and Ramsakhi Mahto. Ujagir Mahto had one

son, Ramayan Mahto, who, in turn, had two sons, namely

Dhanpat Singh and Sudama Singh (defendant 2nd set). It is

further pleaded that Ramsakhi Mahto had one son, Madho

Singh, who had two sons, namely, Rameshwar Singh and

Sumeshwar Singh (the plaintiffs). Ramadhari Mahto is stated to

have died issueless. It is further pleaded that Hukum Mahto had

two sons, namely Laljee Singh and Ram Krit Singh. Laljee

Singh died issueless and Ram Krit Singh had one son, namely

Chandrika Singh (defendant no. 1). Defendant no. 1 has

specifically asserted that the plaintiffs have wrongly stated in

the plaint that Ugrah Mahto and Raghunath Mahto were full

brothers. It has further been pleaded that prior to the

commencement of the cadastral survey operations, both Ugrah

Mahto and his son Raghunath Mahto had already died.

Raghunath Mahto died leaving behind his widow, Jinisi Devi
Patna High Court SA No.477 of 2017(7) dt.05-01-2026
9/21

and his three sons, namely Ujagir Mahto, Ramadhari Mahto and

Ramsakhi Mahto. After the death of Raghunath Mahto, his

widow Jinisi Devi remarried to one Hukum Singh, from whom

she had two sons, namely Laljee Singh and Ram Krit Singh.

Laljee Singh died issueless, while Ram Krit Singh had only one

son, Chandrika Singh (defendant no.1). According to defendant

no. 1, the plaintiffs and the defendant 2 nd set are heirs of

Raghunath Mahto, whereas the defendant 1st set are the heirs of

Hukum Singh. It has been further pleaded that in respect of the

ancestral properties, the plaintiffs and the defendants of the 2nd

set were each entitled to 1/4th share, while the defendant 1st set

were entitled to ½ ( half) share, as per registered partition deed

dated 08-08-1963. It is asserted that the said partition deed was

executed with the participation of Ramayan Mahto, the father of

defendant no. 2 and grandfather of defendant nos. 4 and 5, who

also appeared as the guardian of the plaintiffs, who were then

minors. It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs had earlier filed

Consolidation Case No. 66 of 1978-79 on 11-04-1978 before the

Consolidation Officer, wherein the defendant 2nd set were

arrayed as defendant nos. 1 and 2 and defendant no. 1,

Chandrika Singh, was impleaded merely as a formal (proforma)

defendant no. 3 against whom no relief was claimed. In the said
Patna High Court SA No.477 of 2017(7) dt.05-01-2026
10/21

proceeding, the plaintiffs had sought relief against Dhanpat

Singh and Sudama Singh, sons of Ramayan Singh for

declaration of incorrect survey entries and for confirmation of

possession with an alternative prayer for recovery of possession

in respect of land appertaining to Khata No. 131, plot No. 793

measuring 20 decimals and Khata No. 19, plot No. 5 measuring

5 decimals. In the said Consolidation case, the plaintiffs

themselves had pleaded that a partition had already taken place

among the parties and pursuant thereto, the revisional survey

khatiyan was prepared. They further asserted that they were in

peaceful possession of their respective allotted shares and had

no concern with the portions of the others. The said

Consolidation proceedings, ultimately, travelled up to this Court

and was disposed of on 30-06-2004 as withdrawn. It is, thus,

pleaded that thereafter the plaintiffs have instituted the present

suit by making wrong and contradictory averments.

10. The learned Trial Court, after scrutinizing the

pleadings, evidence and materials on record, dismissed the suit

holding that Raghunath Singh and Hukum Singh were full

brothers and Ramkrit Singh was the son of Hukum Singh. It was

further held that the plaintiffs failed to establish the genealogy

given in Schedule-I of the plaint, which was found to be
Patna High Court SA No.477 of 2017(7) dt.05-01-2026
11/21

incorrect. With regard to the lands purchased in the name of

Ujagir Singh through registered sale deeds dated 06-06-1924

and 29-05-1942, the learned Trial Court examined the pleadings

and the evidence of defendant no. 2, Dhanpat Singh (D.W.1),

the oldest member of the family. D.W.1 admitted that he was not

born at the time of such purchases and further stated that the

revisional survey khatiyan in respect of the said lands stood

recorded in the name of the joint family to which neither he nor

his father had ever raised any objection. He also admitted that

he had never claimed before the Consolidation Officer or before

this Court that the said lands were the self-acquired property of

his grandfather. He further deposed that during the lifetime of

Ujagir Singh, partition had already taken place amongst his

brothers. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the learned

Trial Court held that the lands purchased in the name of Ujagir

Singh were voluntarily thrown by him into joint stock and that

the defendant 2nd set failed to prove self-acquisition.

Consequently, the said properties were held to be joint family

properties and not the self-acquired properties of the defendant

2nd set. As regards the registered partition deed dated

08-08-1963, the learned Trial Court, on consideration of Ext.-3

(certified copy of the registered partition deed dated 08.08.1963)
Patna High Court SA No.477 of 2017(7) dt.05-01-2026
12/21

and Ext.-E (original copy of the registered partition deed dated

08.08.1963) held that although the plaintiffs were minors at the

relevant time, they were duly represented by Ramayan Mahto,

the ancestor of defendant no. 2 as their guardian. The learned

Trial Court further found that no fraud had been committed by

the defendant 1st set or the ancestors of the defendant 2nd set and

the shares were correctly allotted under the said deed.

Accordingly, the learned Trial Court held that the registered

partition deed dated 08-08-1963 was valid, effective and binding

upon the plaintiffs. It was further held that the plaintiffs having

assailed the said partition deed for the first time after a lapse of

about 26 years is barred by limitation. In view of the fact that a

valid partition by metes and bounds had already taken place on

08.08.1963, the learned Trial Court held that no question of a

second partition could arise.

11. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the

learned Trial Court dated 22.09.2008, two Title Appeals were

preferred. Title Appeal No. 49 of 2008 was filed on behalf of the

plaintiffs (respondents 1st set), whereas Title Appeal No. 81 of

2009 was filed by the defendant 2 nd set. Both the appeals were

heard separately by the same Court and were disposed of on the

same day, i.e., 22.09.2008.
Patna High Court SA No.477 of 2017(7) dt.05-01-2026
13/21

12. The learned Appellate Court, while deciding Title

Appeal No. 49 of 2008, held that the genealogical table given by

the plaintiffs in the plaint was correct having been duly

supported by reliable documentary evidence. The Appellate

Court placed reliance on Exhibit-7, being the Cadastral Survey

Khatiyan, wherein Sakhi Mahto, Ramkrit Mahto and Laljee

Mahto have been recorded as the sons of late Raghunath Mahto.

It was further observed that in C.S. Khatiyan, Khata No. 118

(Exhibit-7), the names of five persons, namely, Ram Sakhi,

Ujagir, Ramadhari, Ramkrit and Laljee have been jointly

recorded in respect of plot Nos. 631, 688, 691, 897, 909, 1342

and 1361 all described as the sons of late Raghunath Mahto.

Exhibit-7, thus, clearly reveals that the said five persons were

the sons of late Raghunath Mahto and for that reason their joint

possession has been recorded over several plots in the khatiyan.

Significantly, the name of Hukum Singh does not find mention

anywhere in the said Exhibit, leading to the irresistible

conclusion that Hukum Singh was not a member of the family.

Further, reliance was placed on the Cadastral Survey Khatiyan

of Khata No.237 (Exhibit-7/a), wherein, all the plots recorded

therein describe the joint possession of the aforesaid five sons of

Raghunath Mahto. In the remarks column, Ramkrit and Laljee
Patna High Court SA No.477 of 2017(7) dt.05-01-2026
14/21

have specifically been described as sons of Raghunath Koeri. As

regards Khata No. 237 (Exhibit-7/f), the said C.S. khatiyan

records only Shiv Mohan and Deo as sons of Ugrah Singh and

even in this Khata, the name of Hukum Singh is not appearing.

Likewise, in Exhibit-7/f, the names of Ramsakhi, Ujagir,

Ramadhari, Ramkrit and Laljee have been recorded as the five

sons of Raghunath Koeri, showing their joint possession over

Plot No. 599. Similarly, in Cadastral Survey Khatiyans relating

to Khata Nos. 155 and 270, the aforesaid five persons have

consistently been recorded as sons of Raghunath Mahto, while

Shiv Mohan and Deo have been recorded as sons of Ugrah in

the column of raiyats/tenure-holders. Exhibit-7/e, relating to

Khata No. 418 of the C.S. Khatiyan, reveals that the khatiyan

was finally published on 22.01.1914, wherein, the names of five

sons of Raghunath Koeri and two sons of Ugrah Koeri were

recorded. The learned Appellate Court further observed that the

entire Exhibit-7 series conclusively demonstrates that up to the

final publication of the Cadastral Survey Khatiyans on

22.01.1914 there was no person named Hukum Singh in the

family. The Exhibit-7 series further establishes that late

Raghunath Mahto had five sons, one of whom was Ramkrit

Mahto and that at several places in the C.S. khatiyans, Ramkrit
Patna High Court SA No.477 of 2017(7) dt.05-01-2026
15/21

and Laljee are shown as full brothers and sons of Raghunath

Mahto. Consequently, the contention of the defendant 1st set that

Laljee was the son of Hukum Singh was rightly rejected as

untenable. The learned Appellate Court also considered the

documents produced by D.W.-1, such as mortgage deeds, rehan

depositions (Exhibit-K) and receipts of the Sugar Mill and

Forest Department executed after the year 1940 wherein, the

name of Ramkrit’s father was recorded as Hukum Singh.

However, the Appellate Court held that the Cadastral Survey

Khatiyan is the oldest document and is also a public document

and is presumed to be genuine unless rebutted by cogent

evidence which the defendant 1st set failed to do. Accordingly,

the learned Appellate Court affirmed that the genealogical table

given by the plaintiffs is correct, which finding was also

accepted by the defendant 2nd set (appellant). Consequently, the

the first Appellate Court held that three branches of the family

are entitled to equal shares, each having 1/3rd share in the suit

property. The certified copy of the registered partition deed

dated 08.08.1963, produced on behalf of the plaintiffs, was

marked as Exhibit-3, and the original copy of the same

registered partition deed, produced on behalf of the defendant 1 st

set, was marked as Exhibit-E. The learned Appellate Court
Patna High Court SA No.477 of 2017(7) dt.05-01-2026
16/21

further observed that it was not in dispute that, under the

original registered partition deed (Exhibit-E), Ramayan Mahato,

the ancestor of the defendant 2nd set, had appeared as the

guardian of the plaintiffs, who were admittedly minors at the

time of execution of the said deed in the year 1963. It was also

an admitted position that although the father of the plaintiffs had

died, but their mother was alive at the relevant time, yet she

was not appointed or included as their natural guardian in the

partition proceedings. The learned Appellate Court found that

such conduct clearly amounted to fraud upon the minor

plaintiffs. Under the said partition deed, out of the three

branches of the family, Ramkrit Singh, the ancestor of the

defendant 1st set was allotted a disproportionately large share of

1/2, whereas, the plaintiffs and the defendant 2nd set were

allotted only 1/4th share each. This unequal distribution was

held to be neither just nor fair and was patently prejudicial to the

interests of the minor plaintiffs. The learned Appellate Court

further held that since the partition deed was vitiated by fraud,

no question of limitation arose for reopening the partition.

Consequently, the First Appellate Court decreed the suit by

declaring the plaintiffs’ entitlement to 1/3rd share in the

Schedule-IV property and, accordingly, allowed the appeal
Patna High Court SA No.477 of 2017(7) dt.05-01-2026
17/21

preferred by the plaintiffs.

13. The defendant 2nd set-appellant also preferred Title

Appeal No. 81 of 2009 against the judgment and decree dated

22.09.2008 passed in Title Suit No. 218 of 2004, whereby the

learned Trial Court held that the defendant 2 nd set had failed to

establish that the lands purchased in the name of Ujagir Singh

through registered sale deeds dated 06.06.1924 and 29.05.1942

were his self-acquired properties. The learned Trial Court,

accordingly, concluded that the said properties were not self-

acquired properties, but were held to be joint family properties.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings, the defendant 2nd set

preferred the said appeal.

14. The learned Appellate Court, after considering the

pleadings and evidence on record, observed that the sole issue

arising for determination in the appeal was whether the lands

purchased through the registered sale deeds dated 06.06.1924

and 29.05.1942 were the self-acquired properties of Ujagir

Singh. While adjudicating the issue, the learned Appellate Court

took into account the evidence of Defendant No. 2 (DW-1),

Dhanpat Singh, who categorically admitted that Exhibits E and

Ext. E/1 were recorded in the Revisional Survey Khatiyan in the

joint names of the family members. It was further noted that
Patna High Court SA No.477 of 2017(7) dt.05-01-2026
18/21

DW-1 specifically stated in his evidence that he had never

claimed that the lands purchased through the aforesaid sale

deeds were the self-acquired properties of Ujagir Singh. The

Appellate Court also observed that the properties purchased in

the name of Ujagir Singh had been treated as joint family

properties and were included in the registered partition deed

dated 08.08.1963, in which only the father of Defendant No. 2

and grand father of defendant nos. 4 to 5 namely Ramayan

Mahto had participated. The learned Appellate Court further

observed that the conduct of the ancestors of the defendant 2 nd

set clearly demonstrated that the properties acquired through the

registered sale deeds were consistently treated as joint family

properties and never as exclusive or self-acquired properties of

Ujagir Singh. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence and

conduct, the Appellate Court held that the lands purchased

through the sale deeds dated 06.06.1924 and 29.05.1942 were

not self-acquired properties of the ancestors of the defendant 2 nd

set. Consequently, Title Appeal No. 81 of 2009 was dismissed.

15. Against the judgment and decree passed in Title

Appeal No. 81 of 2009, only Defendant No. 2, Dhanpat Singh

has preferred the present Second Appeal challenging the

concurrent findings relating to the sale deeds dated 06.06.1924
Patna High Court SA No.477 of 2017(7) dt.05-01-2026
19/21

and 29.05.1942. It is pertinent to note that the brother of

Dhanpat Singh, namely Sudama Singh, who had died during the

pendency of the suit and whose legal heirs were duly

substituted, did not prefer any appeal against the said findings

nor did they challenge the same either before the First Appellate

Court or in Second Appeal. Consequently, the findings

regarding the nature of the properties purchased in the name of

Ujagir Singh as joint family properties attained finality against

the other heirs of Ujagir Singh.

16. Having considered the averments made on behalf of

the appellant(s) and after perusal of the materials on record,

including the judgments of the learned Courts below, it appears

that both the learned Courts below, after considering the

pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced, arrived at a

definite conclusion that the defendant 2nd set admitted the

genealogical table given by the plaintiffs in Schedule I of the

plaint and categorically pleaded that no deed of partition was

ever executed in their family. It was further pleaded that their

ancestor, Ram Narayan Mahto (father of Dhanpat Mahto and

Sudama Mahto) was never the guardian of the plaintiffs and the

alleged earlier partition was denied. The defendant 2nd set only

claimed that their ancestor, Ujagir Singh, had purchased the
Patna High Court SA No.477 of 2017(7) dt.05-01-2026
20/21

land, in question, through two registered sale deeds dated

06.06.1924 and 29.05.1942 out of his personal income and the

said properties were his self-acquired properties. However, both

the learned Courts below concurrently held that the defendant

2nd set failed to prove that the lands purchased in the name of

Ujagir Singh were acquired from his personal income,

particularly, in view of their admission that there had been no

prior partition in the family. The properties were always treated

as joint family properties and were also included in the

registered partition deed dated 08.08.1963, in which Ram

Narayan Mahto, the father of defendant no. 2 and grandfather of

defendant nos. 4 and 5 had participated. Though the said

partition deed dated 08.08.1963 was ultimately held to be illegal

and vitiated by fraud upon the minor plaintiffs, it was observed

that under the said deed the defendant 1st set was allotted a

disproportionate half share whereas, the plaintiffs and the

defendant 2nd set were allotted only 1/4th share each. Such

unequal distribution was held to be neither just nor fair and was

found to be patently prejudicial to the interests of the minor

plaintiffs. Moreover, the evidence adduced by defendant no. 2

(DW-1), Dhanpat Singh, clearly revealed that Ext. E (sale deed

dated 06.06.1924) and Ext. E/1 (sale deed dated 29.05.1942)
Patna High Court SA No.477 of 2017(7) dt.05-01-2026
21/21

were recorded in the revisional survey khatiyan in the joint

name of the family members. He further admitted in his

evidence that he had never claimed that the lands purchased

under the aforesaid sale deeds were the self-acquired properties

of Ujagir Singh in previous proceedings. Considering the

aforesaid facts and the materials available on record, it is quite

apparent that the properties purchased in the name of Ujagir

Singh were neither exclusive nor self-acquired properties of

Ujagir Singh, but were joint family properties.

17. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as

well as the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the

judgment and decree of the learned Courts below are based on

finding of facts, and no question of law much less any

substantial question of law arises for consideration.

18. Thus, both the Second Appeals are dismissed at the

stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the C.P.C.

19. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall also

stand disposed of.

(Khatim Reza, J)

shyambihari/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…