Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Munjal vs Lal Yashwardhan Nath Shahdeo @ Lal Karan ... on 21 August, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:24994
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 638 of 2025
1. Prakash Munjal
2. Harish Munjal
Both sons of Late Jiwanlal, R/o Firayalal Compound, Near Railway
Overbridge, Kadru, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)
..... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. Lal Yashwardhan Nath Shahdeo @ Lal Karan Nath Shahdeo, S/o Late Dilip
Nath Shahdeo, R/o Mahto Ji Gali, 98, Indrapuri, Road No.1, Ratu Road, P.O.
Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)
2. Rupa Shahdeo, W/o Late Late Dilip Nath Shahdeo
3. Ashok Kumar, S/o not known to the petitioners
4. Roshan Nath Shahdeo, S/o Late Lal Dipak Nath Shahdeo
Nos. 2 to 4 are residents of Hehal, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District
Ranchi (Jharkhand)
... .... Opposite Parties
With
C.M.P. No. 761 of 2025
1. Permil Danwara, sons of Late Ram Lal Danwara, R/o Kadru Diversion Road,
P.O. Doranda, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) through his attorney
Harish Munjal sons of Late Jiwanlal, R/o Firayalal Compound, Near Railway
Overbridge, Kadru, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)
..... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Lal Yashwardhan Nath Shahdeo @ Lal Karan Nath Shahdeo, S/o Late Dilip
Nath Shahdeo, R/o Mahto Ji Gali, 98, Indrapuri, Road No.1, Ratu Road, P.O.
Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)
2. Rupa Shahdeo, W/o Late Late Dilip Nath Shahdeo
3. Ashok Kumar, S/o not known to the petitioners
4. Roshan Nath Shahdeo, S/o Late Lal Dipak Nath Shahdeo
Nos. 2 to 4 are residents of Hehal, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District
Ranchi (Jharkhand)
... .... Opposite Parties
With
C.M.P. No. 637 of 2025
1. Prakash Munjal
2. Harish Munjal
Both sons of Late Jiwanlal, R/o Firayalal Compound, Near Railway
Overbridge, Kadru, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)
..... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. Lal Yashwardhan Nath Shahdeo @ Lal Karan Nath Shahdeo, S/o Late Dilip
Nath Shahdeo, R/o Mahto Ji Gali, 98, Indrapuri, Road No.1, Ratu Road, P.O.
Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)
2. Rupa Shahdeo, W/o Late Late Dilip Nath Shahdeo
3. Ashok Kumar, S/o not known to the petitioners
4. Roshan Nath Shahdeo, S/o Late Lal Dipak Nath Shahdeo
Nos. 2 to 4 are residents of Hehal, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District
1
2025:JHHC:24994
Ranchi (Jharkhand)
... .... Opposite Parties
With
C.M.P. No. 639 of 2025
1. Prakash Munjal
2. Harish Munjal
Both sons of Late Jiwanlal, R/o Firayalal Compound, Near Railway
Overbridge, Kadru, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)
..... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. Lal Yashwardhan Nath Shahdeo @ Lal Karan Nath Shahdeo, S/o Late Dilip
Nath Shahdeo, R/o Mahto Ji Gali, 98, Indrapuri, Road No.1, Ratu Road, P.O.
Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)
2. Rupa Shahdeo, W/o Late Late Dilip Nath Shahdeo
3. Ashok Kumar, S/o not known to the petitioners
4. Roshan Nath Shahdeo, S/o Late Lal Dipak Nath Shahdeo
Nos. 2 to 4 are residents of Hehal, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District
Ranchi (Jharkhand)
... .... Opposite Parties
With
C.M.P. No. 671 of 2025
1. Prakash Munjal
2. Harish Munjal
Both sons of Late Jiwanlal, R/o Firayalal Compound, Near Railway
Overbridge, Kadru, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)
..... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. Lal Yashwardhan Nath Shahdeo @ Lal Karan Nath Shahdeo, S/o Late Dilip
Nath Shahdeo, R/o Mahto Ji Gali, 98, Indrapuri, Road No.1, Ratu Road, P.O.
Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)
2. Rupa Shahdeo, W/o Late Late Dilip Nath Shahdeo
3. Ashok Kumar, S/o not known to the petitioners
4. Roshan Nath Shahdeo, S/o Late Lal Dipak Nath Shahdeo
Nos. 2 to 4 are residents of Hehal, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District
Ranchi (Jharkhand)
... .... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioners : Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, Advocate
Mr. K.K. Ambastha, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 3&4 : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate
Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate
For the O.P. No.1 : Mr. Pranay Kr. Sinha, Advocate
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Anil Kr. Singh, Advocate
------
Order No. 03 / Dated : 21.08.2025.
1. All these batch of Civil Miscellaneous Petitions arise out of Original Suit
Nos. 253/19, 260/19, 262/19, 263/19 and 264/19. In all these suits, common
2025:JHHC:24994
plaintiff is Lal Yashwardhan Nath Shahdeo @ Lal Karan Nath Shahdeo, Son
of Late Dilip Nath Shahdeo minor through his next friend Sumit Singh Moyal
for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit property
and for declaring that sale deeds dated 14.09.2000 executed by defendant no.
3 in favour of defendant no. 4 was void ab initio and did not confer any right,
title and interest to defendant no. 4.
2. In all the above suits there was no co-plaintiff with Lal Yashwardhan Nath
Shahdeo @ Lal Karan Nath Shahdeo. Whereas, in Original Suit Nos. 253/19
the co-plaintiff of Lal Yashwardhan Nath Shahdeo @ Lal Karan Nath
Shahdeo, is Smt. Rupa Shahdeo wife of Late Sri Dilip Nath Shahdeo.
3. All the Suits are with respect to Schedule-1 of the plaint measuring 31 acres
and 52 decimals, appertaining to Plot Nos. 18, 19, 43, 44, and 45 of Khata
No. 176 at Mouza Hehal, District Ranchi except in Original Suit No. 253 of
2019 which pertains to an area of 6 Katha 11 Chhatak in Plot No. 44/part
Khata No. 176, Anchal Sukhdeonagar.
4. Petitioners are common intervener-applicants Prakash Munjal and Harish
Munjal except in C.M.P. No. 761 of 2025 wherein intervener-applicant is
Permil Danwara who appeared in Original Suit No. 253 of 2019 through his
attorney Harish Munjal. Petitioners are aggrieved by rejection of their
intervenor applications in each of the suits by separate order, but on the same
ground. Being aggrieved by rejection of applications for impleadment, these
civil miscellaneous petitions have been filed.
5. The present petitioners sought for impleadment in these suits, inter alia, on
the ground that they had purchased 18357.58 square meter and 9178.79
square meter of land by two separate registered sale deeds executed on
18.11.1999 and 26.12.2001, by Lal Dilip Nath Shahdeo through his
registered power of attorney holder Omprakash Taleja and Rohit Kumar
Middha respectively. The land appertained to survey plot no.43 of Khata
No.176 Hehal, Sukhdeonagar, Ranchi.
6. It is contended by the petitioners that they had antecedent right over the land
as they had purchased the land from the father of the plaintiff Lal
Yashwardhan Nath Shahdeo @ Lal Karan Nath Shahdeo, and husband of
Smt. Rupa Shahdeo.
7. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that registered sale deeds executed in
favour of the petitioners has nowhere been challenged in these suits.
2025:JHHC:24994
However, the land purchased by them has been shown in the schedule of
these suits and declaration of title with respect to it has been sought for. If
the declaration was given with respect to the suit land their interest will be
adversely affected.
8. Mr. Pranay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no. 1, has
submitted that the claim of interveners-applicants hinges on the sale deed
dated 18.11.1999 and 26.12.2001 and both of which were executed in
Bombay and not in Ranchi. This was impermissible after the amendment in
Section 30 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 which came into effect from
31.08.1991 (Bihar Amendment). This amendment fell for consideration in
L.P.A. No. 620 of 2015 by the Division Bench of this Court, wherein it was
held that any sale, which was not executed for the property within the State
of Jharkhand, and other State, was illegal. It is further argued that these two
sale deeds were not executed by Dilip Nath Shahdeo, rather by constituted
attorney Rohit Kumar Mirdha and Om Prakash Taleja. None of the power of
attorneys was registered. Even the power of attorney has been enclosed in
the counter affidavits, wherein perusal of it discloses that the constituted
power of attorney holders have not been given power to execute the sale
deed, rather they have been given power only to present the sale deed
executed by the vendor Dilip Nath Shahdeo.
9. It is further argued that the intervener-applicants are neither a necessary party
nor a proper party for adjudicating the lis in these present set of cases. The
decree will not become in-executable in their absence.
10.It is argued by Sri Prashant Pallav that at best, if the intervener-applicants
were a necessary party, the suits will be liable to be dismissed for non-
impleadment of necessary party, but they cannot be impleaded in the present
suits that too at the belated stage of final argument and judgment, when they
had full knowledge about the pending suits. It is also submitted that the
intervener-applicants are not purchaser pendente lite and even if for the sake
of argument, it is assumed that they had purchased validly earlier, their right
will not be affected by the present suits.
11. It is also argued that since the impleadment at this stage will result in de novo
trial, as they will be impleaded as defendants and then will see their right to
file written statement to contest the claim of the plaintiffs. At this fag end of
trial, a de novo trial has been commenced. Reliance is placed on Anokhe Lal
2025:JHHC:24994
Vs. Radhamohan Bansal & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 730 and Gati Cargo
Management Service Vs. SBL Industries Limited (2014) SCC OnLine Delhi
3297.
12. In reply, it is argued by Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, that Section 30 (2) of
Registration Act, 1908 has been deleted with effect from 25.04.2021 and,
therefore, on the date of registration, the Registration at Presidency Town
was not barred in view of Section 30 (2) of the Registration Act, 1908.
Reliance is placed on Anokhe Lal Vs. Radhamohan Bansal & Ors. AIR 1997
SC 257 and Hariram Manjhi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (2016) 1 JCR
358.
13. Upon hearing both the parties and perusing the materials on record, the
following facts clearly emerge:
First, the plaintiffs have instituted the suit seeking a declaration of title
and confirmation of possession. They have also sought for declaration of
the sale deeds executed by Defendant No. 3 in favour of various vendees
as null and void, who have been impleaded as defendants in the suits.
Secondly, the intervenor applicants claim antecedent title based on two
registered sale deeds executed by the registered power of attorney holder
of Lal Dilip Nath Shahdeo, the father of Lal Yashwardhan Nath Shahdeo
@ Lal Karan Nath Shahdeo, the plaintiff in all these suits. It is significant
to note that these sale deeds are not under challenge in the present suits.
Thirdly, the plaintiff, being dominus litis, has neither impleaded the
intervenor applicants as parties to the suit nor sought for any relief against
them. However, the land sold in favour of the intervenor applicants by
Lal Dilip Nath Shahdeo has been included within the suit schedule
property in respect of which declaration of title is sought.
Fourthly, the intervenor applicants have moved for impleadment at the
fag end of the trial.
14.There are two factors which weigh in favour of non-interference with the
impugned order:
Firstly, no relief has been claimed by the plaintiffs against the intervenor
applicants. Neither the sale deeds forming the basis of their antecedent title
have been challenged, nor has recovery of possession been sought against
them. Any declaration of title that may be made by the court concerning the
property forming part of their sale deeds shall not be binding upon them, as
the plaintiffs, at their own peril, have omitted to implead them in the suit. In
2025:JHHC:24994
any event, the judgment in these suits would not operate as a judgment in
rem but as a judgment in personam in terms of Section 41 of the Indian
Evidence Act. Consequently, the rights of the intervenor applicants in
respect of the land covered under their sale deeds shall remain unaffected by
the decree passed in the present suits.
Secondly, there is merit in the contention of the plaintiffs that impleadment
at the stage of final arguments would necessitate a de novo trial and cause
undue delay in the disposal of the suits. The impugned order, along with the
reasons recorded, indicates that the intervenor applicants were aware of the
pendency of the present litigation before, yet they chose to file the
application for impleadment only at this belated stage.
15. Accordingly, these civil miscellaneous petitions stand dismissed,
subject to the condition that the judgment and decree passed in these
suits shall not bind the intervener-applicants, nor shall they extend to
the land purchased by them under the aforesaid two sale deeds.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pawan/ -
