BEJLA ORAON Vs. KALI DAS ORAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave Granted.

(2.) Under challenge, at the instance of the original Plaintiff now represented through legal heirs, is the judgment and order dtd. 10/6/2024 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Second Appeal No. 35 of 1995. The impugned judgment upheld the findings returned in first appeal by the 1st Additional District Judge, Gumla in TA No. 42 of 1990 First Appellate Court] which in turn affirmed the judgment and decree of the Munsif, Gumla in TS No. 22 of 1975 [ Civil Court]. In other words, we are asked to examine the correctness of concurrent findings returned by the courts below.

(3.) One Sukhu Oraon (the grandfather) had three sons, namely Dhungru, Ledura and Bhoula. The plaintiff (Sukhu) was Dhungru 's second son and his grandfather namesake. He claimed ownership of all land owned by Sukhu. Such a claim was opposed by Bhoula 's daughter, Budhain, and her husband Punai (the original defendants 1 and 2). This is based on Sukhu's second son namely, Ledura, having apparently taken Punai as his ghardamad, for he had no children of his own. It is the undisputed case of the parties that in the local customs that govern them, daughters have no right of inheritance. The defendants claim that Ledura 's property had come to Punai, who is now deceased. The defendants also state that Bhoula having died, Budhain and Ledura partitioned the properties amongst them vide deed dtd. 27/2/1975, whereas the plaintiff submits that since they had no title whatsoever such a partition deed would be non est. For ease of understanding, a family chart is placed below: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_15_LAWS(SC)7_2026_1.jpg</IMG>