Jharkhand High Court
Rubi Devi vs Ritesh Kumar Gupta on 20 January, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 5 of 2023
1. Rubi Devi, aged about 45 years, wife of late Suraj Kumar
Gupta,
2. Shalini Kumari, aged about 25 years, daughter of late Suraj
Kumar Gupta
3. Mini Kumari, aged about 20 years, daughter of late Suraj
Kumar Gupta
4. Sunny Kumar Gupta, aged about 19 years, Son of late Suraj
Kumar Gupta,
5. Saroj Devi, aged about 68 years, Wife of late Madan Prasad
Gupta
6. Jyoti Jamuar, aged about 53 years Daughter of Madan Prasad
Gupta
All residents of Makatpur Chowk, Giridih, P.O. & P.S. -
Giridih (T), District - Giridih (Jharkhand)
... ... Appellants-Respondents-Defendants
Versus
1. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Son of Rabindra Prasad Gupta, Resident
of Makatpur within P.S. - Giridih (T), P.O. and District -
Giridih
.. Respondent-appellant-plaintiff
2. Shivani Devi, wife of late Kishore Prasad Gupta
3. Sheetal Adhikari, Daughter of late Kishore Prasad Gupta
4. Pooja Singh, Daughter of late Kishore Prasad Gupta
5. Priti Singh, Daughter of late Kishore Prasad Gupta
No.2 to 5 Residents of 43/11 Ground Floor C.N. Roy Road,
Picnic Garden, P.O. & P.S. - Kolkata, District - Kolkata -
700039
6. Amit Gupta @ Rinku Gupta, Son of Late Madan Prasad Gupta,
Resident of Makatpur Chowk, Giridih, within P.S. - Giridih
(T), P.O. and District - Giridih
7. Sandeep Kumar Gupta, son of late Kishore Prasad Gupta,
Resident of Ground Floor, 43/11, C.N. Roy Road, P.O. & P.S. -
Kolkata, District - Kolkata - 700039
... Proforma Respondent-Respondents-Defendants
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, Advocate
: Mr. Amit Kr. Verma, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Himanshu Kumar Mehta, Advocate
: Mrs. Manjusri Patra, Advocate
: Mr. Rishav Raj, Advocate
---
05/20.01.2025 In furtherance to the arguments recorded on the last date with
respect to substantial question no.1 as framed vide order dated
02.08.2023, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
initially the suit was filed only against one defendant seeking specific
performance of contract and subsequently, the purchaser as well as the
executor of registered sale deed dated 29.05.2006 i.e. defendant no.3
was added as party. The learned counsel has submitted that though the
sale deed sale deed dated 29.05.2006 was not challenged in as much
as no prayer was made to set aside the subsequent sale deed dated
29.05.2006 but even the relief portion of the plaint was not amended
adequately. He has submitted that the appellate court while setting
aside the trial court's decree has directed only the defendant nos.1 (a)
to 1 (d) and 7 to execute the sale deed. The learned counsel has
submitted that since the plaint was not amended, the appellate court
passed the decree directing the legal heirs and successors of the
defendant no.1 (Kishore Prasad Gupta) to execute the sale deed in
favour of the plaintiff (Ritesh Kumar Gupta), although the sale deed in
connection with the same property was executed in favour of the
defendant no.2 by the defendant no.1 vide sale deed dated 29.05.2006.
He submits that considering the nature of relief prayed for in the
original suit, it was for the plaintiff to amend the plaint so as to get
appropriate relief against the purchaser of sale deed dated 29.05.2006,
namely, Rubi Devi, but no such steps were taken.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
while opposing the prayer, has referred to the judgments passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1953) 2 SCC 509 (Lala Durga
Prasad and Ors. Vs. Lala Deep Chand and Ors.) paragraph 40, 41
and 42; (2022) 7 SCC 384 (P. Ramasubbamma Vs. V. Vijayalakshmi
and Ors.) paragraph 5.3 and 16, and (2024) 8 SCC 83 (Maharaj
Singh and Ors. VS. Karan Singh (dead) through legal
representatives and Ors.) paragraph 20, 22 and 24 to submit that
there was no need to challenge the sale deed, and therefore, the
subsequent sale deed was not challenged. Accordingly, the 1st
substantial question of law is fit to be answered in favour of the
respondents. He has submitted that merely because there was no
further amendment in the prayer portion of the plaint, the same is not
fatal to the relief granted to the plaintiff and in view of the aforesaid
three judgments, the point of law is fit to be answered in favour of the
respondents.
3. So far as point no.2 is concerned, the learned counsel has
submitted that there is no perversity in connection with the said
finding as the learned appellate court has held that there was previous
partition amongst the family members.
4. Arguments are concluded.
5. Short synopsis with respect to the arguments, which have been
advanced in the open Court be filed by the parties by 22.01.2025.
6. At this, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted
that he may add 1 or 2 judgments for consideration.
7. Post this case for judgment on 05.03.2025.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
