Jharkhand High Court
Gautam Nag Sarkar vs Manish Agarwal on 10 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:14912
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 426 of 2025
Gautam Nag Sarkar, aged about 52 years, son of late Ganesh Nag Sarkar,
resident of shop holding no.6, Golmuri Market, P.O. & P.S. Golmuri, Town
Jamshedpur, Dist.- East Singhbhum ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Manish Agarwal, son of late Nagarmal Agrawal, resident of shop holding
no.E, Golmuri Market, P.O. & P.S. Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur, Dist.- East
Singhbhum- 831003
2. Mukesh Kumar, son of late Nagarmal Agrawal, resident of shop holding
no.E, Golmuri Market, P.O. & P.S. Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur, Dist.- East
Singhbhum- 831003
3. Smt. Kamlesh Agarwal, wife of late Nagarmal Agrawal, resident of shop
holding no.E, Golmuri Market, P.O. & P.S. Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur,
Dist.- East Singhbhum- 831003
4. Smt. Sushma Agarwal, wife of Sri Rakesh Agarwal, daughter of late
Nagarmal Agarwal, resident of Manik Para, P.O. & P.S. Manik Para, Dist.-
West Midnapore, West Bengal- 721513
5. Smt. Uma Devi, daughter of late Umesh Ray, resident of Quarter
No.A/17, Bijay Nagar, Golmuri, P.O. & P.S. Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur,
Dist. East Singhbhum, Pin- 831003
6. Smt. Rekha Nag Sarkar, daughter of late Pashupati Nag Sarkar, resident
of Ghatmura, P.O. Chandrakona, P.S. Gharbheta, Dist. Midnapore, Pin-
831003
7. M/s Tata Steel Ltd., a limited company, incorporated under Indian
Companies Act, 1956 having its local office amongst others at Bistupur,
P.O. & P.S. Bishtupur, Town Jamshedpur, Dist. East Singhbhum- 831001
... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Ishaani Singh, Advocate
For O.P. No.7 : Mr. Amitabh Prasad, A.C. to Mr. G.M. Mishra, Advocate
-----
06/10.06.2025 Heard Mr. Vishal Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Mr. Amitabh Prasad, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.7.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India praying therein to set-aside the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the
learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-V, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Original
Suit No.125/2021, whereby, the petition dated 28.02.2022 filed by the
petitioner herein, who is defendant no.1 in the said suit under Section 4 of
2025:JHHC:14912
the Partition Act read with Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act was
rejected.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that opposite
party nos. 1 to 4 are sons, daughter and widow of late Nagarmal Agrawal,
son of Sri Gujarmal Agrawal. He further submits that undivided 1/3rd share in
shop cum residential holding no. 6. (Shop Holding), standing on area
measuring 500 sq. ft., out of total allotment of 1,500 Sq.ft (20'ft x 75'ft) with
kutcha and pucca structures, situated in Golmuri Market (Hotel Line), Golmuri,
P.O and P.S. Golmuri, town Jamshedpur, Dist. East Singhbhum, within District
sub Registry office, Jamshedpur and all that undivided 1/3rd share in shop
holding no. 6, standing on area measuring 20'ft x 25'ft i.e. 500 sq.ft (Kutcha
structures on 200 sq.ft), standing on Shop Holding No. 6, out of the total land
of 20'ft x 75'ft situated at Golmuri Market (Hotel Line), Ρ.Ο and P.S. Golmuri,
town Jamshedpur, Dist. East Singhbhum, both the above properties cover all
structures standing on undevided land of 40'ft x 75'ft, i.e., 2/3rd (1,000 sq.ft
out of total allotment area of 1500 sq.ft) in total, fully described in the
schedule 'A' disclosed in the said suit. He then submits that one Pashupati
Nag Sarkar was the common ancestor of the defendant nos. 1 to 7 in the said
suit and Smt. N Bala was his wife, both of them died. Pashupati Nag Sarkar
died leaving behind two sons and three daughters namely Jagdish Nag Sarkar,
Ganesh Nag Sarkar as sons and Hashi Nag Sarkar, Maya Rani Sarkar and
Rekha Nag Sarkar (defendant no. 7) as daughter in the Original Suit. Jagdish
Nag Sarkar died unmarried, Ganesh Nag Sarkar died on 11.03.2010, leaving
behind his widow Meera Nag Sarkar as defendant no. 5, and three sons and
one daughter namely Gautam Nag Sarkar, Dalma Nag Sarkar @ Abhijeet Nag
2025:JHHC:14912
Sarkar, Rana Nag Sarkar and daughter Jhuma Bose who are defendant nos.
1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively in the Original Suit. Hashi Nag Sarkar died on
27.02.2004 leaving behind her only daughter Uma Devi who is defendant no.
6 in the original suit. The husband of Hashi Nag Sarkar predeceased her long
back. Maya Rani Sarkar died unmarried on 03.06.2002 and Rekha Nag Sarkar
is still alive who is defendant no. 7 in the original suit. He also submits that
Pashupati Nag Sarkar during his life time enjoyed the said house property on
the said holding with his wife N. Bala Nag Sarkar along with Jagdish Nag
Sarkar, Ganesh Nag Sarkar as sons and Maya Rani Sarkar and Hashi Nag
Sarkar and Rekha Nag Sarkar as daughters peacefully without any
encumbrances and to the knowledge of all persons concerned. He was also
making payment of regular ground rent and other charges to the superior
landlord M/s. Tata Steel Ltd, Jamshedpur. After the death of Pashupati Nag
Sarkar and his three other heirs namely Jagdish Nag Sarkar, Ganesh Nag
Sarkar, Maya Rani Sarkar, the said house property on Shop Hol No. 6, Golmuri
Market used to be possessed peacefully by Hashi Nag Sarkar and heirs of
Ganesh Nag Sarkar and Rekha Nag Sarkar as heirs and successor of the
deceased Pashupati Nag Sarkar. He further submits that further descriptions
are described in the present C.M.P. stating therein how the property was
shared. He then submits that defendant no.6 in the said original suit Uma
Devi executed a sale deed on 29.03.2010 in favour of the said Nagarmal
Agarwal and got the said sale deed registered on 22.04.2010 bearing Sale
Deed No.3134, serial no. 3788 at the District Sub Registration Office,
Jamshedpur on receiving the entire consideration amount to the tune of Rs.3
Lakhs from the said Nagarmal Agarwal. According to him, the Government
2025:JHHC:14912
value was more than that and in spite of that the sale deed was executed on
lesser amount. He also submits that there has not been any partition of the
aforesaid premises on Holding No.6, Golmuri Market, Jamshedpur amongst
the heirs of the deceased Pashupati Nag Sarkar. Nagarmal Agarwal filed suit
for partition to demarcate 1/3rd share of Uma Devi (defendant no.6 in the
original suit) which was purchased by the said Nagarmal Agarwal by
registered sale deed on 29.03.2010 registered on 22.04.2010 bearing
registered Sale Deed No.3134, serial no.3788. He further submits that notice
was issued to the petitioner herein in the said original suit, who is defendant
no.1 and he appeared and filed his written statement in the said original suit
and along with written statement he filed a petition under Section 4 of the
Partition Act read with Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act and by the
impugned order, the learned Court has been pleased to dispose of the said
petition for the reasons assigned therein. He submits that the learned Court
has held that the issue with regard to Section 4 of the Partition Act read with
Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act has already been framed in the said
suit and in view of that, the same will be decided in the final judgment. He
submits that once the petition has been filed, the learned Court is required to
decide the same first and thereafter to proceed in the suit. To buttress this
argument, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Arun Raisurana v. Jamshedpur Property
Developers Private Limited & others in C.M.P. No.222 of 2021, vide
judgment dated 31.10.2023. On these grounds, he submits that the
impugned order may kindly be set-aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.7, who is M/s Tata
2025:JHHC:14912
Steel Limited, submits that the learned Court has rightly passed the order. He
submits that the issue has already been framed and that can be decided by
the learned Court after providing opportunity to both the sides.
5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that admittedly
the property in question has not been partitioned and one of the legal
heirs/successors has sold the property to petitioner no.1 and subsequently
the partition suit was filed by the purchaser. In this background, the learned
Court has already framed issues with regard to Section 4 of the Partition Act
read with Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act and has held that the
issue has already been framed and that will be decided after providing
opportunity to both the sides in the suit along with other issues. In view of
that, if such a situation is there particularly when a partition has not taken
place between the parties, the learned Court has rightly come to the
conclusion that the issue framed will be decided after providing opportunity
to the parties and for that evidence is required to be led to decide the same
issue.
6. It is not clear as to whether the said petition filed by the petitioner was
pressed earlier or not and on later stage, it was pressed and with regard to
the said petition, the learned Court has already taken care of by the impugned
order and it is not decided against the petitioner and the learned Court has
observed that for deciding the same, the evidence is required to be led and
in view of that, the learned Court has rightly passed the order.
7. Since the suit property has many co-owners including the plaintiff-
opposite party, the defendant-petitioner could not have acquired right, title
2025:JHHC:14912
and interest in the whole of the suit property solely on the basis of the sale
deed dated 29.03.2010 executed by forefather of the petitioner. The sale deed,
if at all, in accordance with Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act may be
a valid document to the extent of the share of opposite party in the property
and the petitioner is free to take remedies to claim appropriate relief either
by suit of partition or by suit of compensation and damages against opposite
party. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sk. Golam Lalchand v. Nandu Lal Shaw @
Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes and others, reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 2456.
8. So far as the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner
in the case of Arun Raisurana v. Jamshedpur Property Developers
Private Limited (supra) is concerned, the ratio decided in Sk. Golam
Lalchand v. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes
and others (supra) is not considered in that case and in view of that, the
facts of that case is distinguishable.
9. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, no case of
interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
10. The learned Court will decide the issue as already observed in the
impugned order, in accordance with law.
11. The dismissal of this C.M.P. will not prejudice the case of either of the
parties.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/ A.F.R.
