Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Anita Mahato Aged About 49 Years vs Devan Mahato @ Devendra Nath Mahato on 30 July, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 34 of 2023
Smt. Anita Mahato aged about 49 years, W/o Sri Birbal
Mahato, R/o Vill. Jojodih, Tudiyan, P.O.+ P.S.-Kharswan, Dist.
Seraikella-Kharswan, Jharkhand ... ... Appellant
Versus
Devan Mahato @ Devendra Nath Mahato, S/o Late Mokra
Mahato, R/o Vill. Chhota Gamharia, P.O.+P.S.-Gamharia, Dist.
Seraikella-Kharswan ... ... Respondent
With
S.A. No. 49 of 2023
Smt. Anita Mahato aged about 49 years, W/o Sri Birbal
Mahato, R/o Vill. Jojodih, Tudiyan, P.O.+ P.S.-Kharswan, Dist.
Seraikella-Kharswan, Jharkhand ... ... Appellant
Versus
Devan Mahato @ Devendra Nath Mahato, S/o Late Mokra
Mahato, R/o Vill. Chhota Gamharia, P.O.+P.S.-Gamharia, Dist.
Seraikella-Kharswan ... ... Respondent
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Advocate
: Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Advocate
: Mr. Madhav Prasad, Advocate
: Mr. Avnish Kumar Pathak, Advocate
: Mr. Gautam Kumar Pandey, Advocate
---
12/30.07.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.
2. Both the appeals have been filed against the judgement dated
12.12.2022 (decree signed on 22.12.2022) passed by the learned
District Judge-II, Seraikella-Kharswan in Title Appeal No. 07 of 2015
and in Title Appeal No. 13 of 2015, whereby the judgment dated
30.05.2015 (decree signed on 12.06.2015) passed by learned Civil
Judge, Senior Division No. 1, Seraikella-Kharswan in Title Suit No.
47 of 2008 has been upheld.
3. The Title Suit was decreed on contest and the registered sale
deed dated 26.07.2006 has been declared as inoperative void and
illegal and not binding on the plaintiff and further a decree for
confirmation of possession of the plaintiff over the suit premises has
been passed.
4. The learned Trial Court had directed the plaintiff to refund an
amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- as the sale deed was being canceled but the
learned 1st Appellate Court has set aside the said relief also which was
given to the defendant by holding that no such relief was prayed for in
as much as no counter claim was filed to that effect.
5. These two appeals arise out of the same judgment and the
background of the case has been mentioned in order dated 05.05.2025
wherein the substantial questions of law were also framed.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed the entire
plaint and the written statement and has submitted that there is no
allegation that the sale deed involved in the present case being Sale
deed No. 3640 of 2006 dated 26.07.2006 was in violation of the
provisions of the Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act;
neither there was any pleading that both the parties were belonging to
backward class nor there was any pleading that in absence of any
permission from the Deputy Commissioner to sell the property, the
sale deed was void. In the absence of foundational pleadings, the suit
could not have been decided alleging violation of the provisions of the
Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act.
7. The learned counsel submits that two grounds were taken for
the purposes of challenging the sale deed, firstly that the plaintiff was
served with wine and country made liquor and was in intoxicated
condition brought to the Registry Office at Seraikella and his thumb
impression was taken in various papers and that he usually puts his
signature as D.N. Mahato but was prevented to sign any paper and
Secondly, the consideration amount was also not paid to the plaintiff.
The learned counsel has submitted that both the judgements passed by
the court is based on violation of provisions of Section 46 of the
Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act without any foundational pleading to that
effect and none of the courts have recorded any conclusive finding
that the plaintiff was in the state of intoxication on the date and time
of execution of sale deed. The learned counsel has also submitted that
the fact that the learned Trial Court had directed refund of Rs.
2.50,000/- itself indicates that the trial court believed that the
consideration amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid to the plaintiff and
therefore the plea of the plaintiff that no consideration amount was
paid is also not correct. He submits that the consideration amount was
paid as is apparent from the registered sale deed which was duly
executed.
8. The learned counsel has submitted that the learned trial court
while passing the judgment was of the erroneous view that the
compliance/violation of Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act
was a pure question of law and no pleading as such was required and
the learned court wrongly recorded that it was admitted that both the
parties were of backward class although the plaint and the written
statement does not reveal that such fact was admitted by the parties
and no foundation was laid alleging violation of section 46 of the
Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act . The learned counsel has also submitted
that no issue was also framed in connection with violation of Section
46 of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act. The learned counsel has
submitted that the impugned judgments cannot be sustained in the
eyes of law. He has submitted that substantial question of law as
framed by this court be answered in favour of the appellant. The
learned counsel has submitted that if the sale deed is held to be valid,
there is no question of any refund of the consideration amount.
9. The learned counsel has also placed the evidence of P.W. 3 and
P.W. 4 and submitted that the plaintiff himself and in his evidence has
not stated that consideration amount was not paid to him. The learned
counsel has also submitted that in the written statement, an objection
was raised with regard to the allegation of intoxication stating that the
plaintiff has not mentioned as to who was the person who was
involved in intoxicating him. He has submitted that the allegation of
intoxication was also vague and on the same day two sale deeds were
executed, one in favour of the plaintiff and other by the plaintiff, the
allegation of intoxication was not proved. The learned counsel has
submitted that in the plaint at the cause title, the plaintiff has disclosed
that his caste was Kurmi but as per the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court dated 03rd October, 2023, in Special Civil
Application No. 8506 of 2023 (Kailashben WD/O Mahendrabhai
Damodar Brahmbatt versus Upendrabhai Becharbhai Patel), it has
been held that the cause title of the plaint or appeal is not the part of
the pleading as the same does not include in the verification of the
pleadings. The learned counsel has also relied upon the following
judgments: -
(i) (2015) 9 SCC 755 (Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta versus
New Era Fabrics Private Limited and Others) para 39
(ii) (2018) 11 SCC 652 (Shivaji Balram Haibatti Avinash
Maruthi Pawar) para 26
(iii) (2014) 5 SCC 312 (Arikala Narasa Reddy versus
Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari) para 15 and 27
10. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the
matter may be posted tomorrow i.e. 31.07.2025 at 10.30 A.M. for
further hearing so as to enable him to prepare in the matter.
11. Post this case tomorrow i.e. 31.07.2025 at 10.30 A.M.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
