Ramlakhan Dangi And Others vs Dev Kumar Singh And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 2112 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ramlakhan Dangi And Others vs Dev Kumar Singh And Others on 29 January, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                               Second Appeal No. 230 of 2023

                Ramlakhan Dangi and others ... Plaintiffs/Respondents/Appellants
                                       Versus
                Dev Kumar Singh and others ...
                                       Defendants/Appellants/Respondents

                               ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate

---

05/29.01.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that as per the learned Trial Court, the plaintiffs had duly proved exhibit-4 as recorded in paragraph 25 of the Trial Court's judgment. The land in question and other lands were recorded in the name of Hemraj Pandey, Gobardhan Pandey etc. and they proved that the suit land came in share of Natho Singh in partition between Natho Singh and Dwarika Singh vide Exhibit-3. In the year 1972, Natho Singh sold 7 decimal of land Vide Exhibit-1 and Jamabandi was also opened. He submits that the defendants had executed sale deed in the year 2014 which was marked as exhibit 1/A and the same was for a portion of the property which was covered by the sale deed of 1972. The learned Trial court held that the subsequent sale deed dated 24.09.2014 was fake and forged document and executed without any basis and earlier sale deed dated 17.01.1972 was a valid document.

3. He submits that the learned Appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree and has recorded a finding in paragraph 17 of the Appellate court's judgment that there was no evidence regarding previous partition and there was nothing to show that Natho Singh had got authority to execute the sale deed for the entire suit land and consequently held that the plaintiff failed to prove his case over the entire suit land and reversed the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court.

4. The learned counsel submits that as a consequence of the judgment passed by the Appellate Court, the subsequent sale deed dated 24.09.2014, which was in relation to the portion of the property which was covered under the sale deed of the year 1972 was rendered invalid, although the defendants or their vendors had never challenged the sale deed of the year 1972.

5. The learned counsel has submitted that unless the sale deed of the year 1972 was challenged by the defendant by instituting a suit, the same could not be held to be invalid by the learned appellate court.

6. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this appeal is admitted for final hearing on the following substantial question of law:-

"Whether the learned first appellate court is justified in reversing the judgment of the learned Trial Court without considering the fact that the vendors of the appellants and the respondents have dealt with the properties separately since long claiming to exercise their respective title?"

7. Call for the case records from the concerned court.

8. It will be opened to the parties to get additional substantial question of law once the records are received from the concerned courts.

9. Let notice be issued to the respondents under ordinary process for which requisites etc. be filed within a period of ten days from today.

10. Let the matter be posted on 27.03.2025.

11. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through Fax.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit