Snehlata Soreng & Others vs Filgrim Kharia
2022 Latest Caselaw 4690 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    S.A. No.165 of 2002
                             ------

Snehlata Soreng & Others .... .... .... Appellants Versus Filgrim Kharia .... .... .... Respondent

------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Appellants : Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, Advocate

------

Order No.07 Dated- 23/11/2022 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta- learned counsel for the appellants submits that at the time of admission of this appeal vide order dated 17.04.2003, the following only one substantial question of law was formulated:-

"Whether the court of appeal below erred in law in reversing the judgment of the trial court without correctly deciding the question of limitation relating to a suit for cancellation of a registered deed of sale?"

Learned counsel for the appellants relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of B. Santoshamma & Another vs. D. Sarala & Another reported in (2020) 19 SCC 80 paragraph- 84 of which reads as under:-

"84. The vendee did not implead the vendor as defendant in her later suit (Original Suit No.401 of 1985, renumbered Original Suit No.92 of 1993) inter alia for a declaration that the deed of conveyance executed by the vendor in favour of Pratap Reddy was null and void. The suit has rightly been dismissed for non joinder of the vendor as defendant. There could be no question of a document being adjudged null and void without impleading the executant of the document, as defendant."

It is submitted by Mr. Gupta that in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, though the prayer of the plaintiff to declare the sale-deed executed by the vendor to the husband of the defendant No.1 is null and void but the said vendor has not been impleaded as a party to the suit. Hence, appropriate additional substantial question of law is required to be formulated.

Considering the aforesaid facts, the following additional substantial question of law is formulated:-

"Whether the First Appellate Court committed error of law by ignoring the fact that in the absence of vendor of the sale-deed sought to be declared as null and void, the suit ought to have been dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary party?"

List this appeal in the next week under the heading 'Hearing.'

Animesh/ (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)