Bhagwati Devi vs Jinni Devi
2025 Latest Caselaw 3010 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Bhagwati Devi vs Jinni Devi on 3 March, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                        S.A. No. 37 of 2021

   1. Bhagwati Devi, aged about 56 years, wife of Guni Rawani
   2. Manik Rawani, aged about 45 years, son of Guni Rawani
                          ...      ...      Defendants/Appellants/Appellants
   3. Anjali Devi, W/o late Ratan Rawani (aged about 34 years)
   4. Anup Kumar, S/o Late Ratan Rawani, aged about 14 years represented
      through his mother as guardian, S/o Anjali Devi
   5. Anokhi Kumari, D/o Late Ratan Rawani, aged about 12 years,
      represented through his mother as guardian, S/o Anjali Devi
   6. Aradhya Kumari, D/o Late Ratan Rawani, aged about 8 years,
      represented through his mother as guardian, S/o Anjali Devi
      All are R/o village Chandwari, at present Patharchapti Naya Bazar,
      Madhupur, P.O.+P.S. & Sub-Division Madhupur, District Deoghar
                          ...      ...    Substituted Appellants/Appellants
                                 Versus
   1. Jinni Devi, wife of Sri Chhedi Rawani
   2. Binod Rawani, S/o late Chiman Rawani
             ...            ...           Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents
   3. Soni Devi, W/o Late Ganesh Rawani
   4. Pintu Kumar @ Piyush Kumar, S/o Late Ganesh Rawani, , minor,
      represented through his mother as guardian, S/o Soni Devi
   5. Riya Kumari, D/o late Ganesh Rawani, minor, represented through her
      mother as guardian, D/o Soni Devi
             ...            ...         Substituted Respondents/Respondents
   6. Ramesh Rawani, S/o late Ram Rawani
   7. Krishna Rawani, S/o Late Ram Rawani
   8. Lalita Devi, W/o Late Ram Rawani
      All are R/o Mohalla Patharchapti P.O.+P.S. & Sub-Division
      Madhupur, District Deoghar
             ...            ...           Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents

                       ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellants : Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Manjeet Kr. Chaudhary, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Kumar Das, Advocate

For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate

---

rd 12/3 March 2025

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2021 passed by the learned District Judge-VII, Deoghar dismissing Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2019 and affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) - I, Deoghar decreeing Title (D) Suit No. 16 of 2004.

3. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 06.11.2023 on the following substantial questions of law: -

(i) Whether the learned trial court has recorded findings on vital issues ignoring the settled principles of law of this bench and arrived at wrong conclusion?

(ii) Whether the appellate Court has also failed to follow the prescribed procedure under order 41 rule 31 of C.PC and without framing any specific points of this view and appreciation of order in accordance with law as committed by perversity?

4. However, vide order dated 27.02.2025, the following further substantial questions of law have also been framed: -

(i) Whether the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has misinterpreted the document of title i.e. Ext. B Sale deed dated 15.02.1994 no. 3034, which is a registered document and has a presumption that it is validly executed document, and as such the onus is on the person who alleges the contrary?

(ii) Whether the entire plaint itself is hit by the provision of order VII rule 3 of the C.P.C. as the particulars of the schedule-B does not correspondents to the sale deed dated 15/12/1994 no. 3034 i.e. Ext. B executed in favour of the appellants?

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that so far as substantial question of law as framed vide order dated 06.11.2023 is concerned, the substantial question of law mentioned in paragraph 4(i) of the order dated 27.02.2025 be decided and the first substantial question of law as framed vide order dated 06.11.2023 need not be separately answered. He has further submitted that so far as the second substantial question of law framed vide order dated 06.11.2023 is concerned, upon reading of the appellate court's judgment, the point of determination was framed by the learned appellate court vide paragraph 8 and the same was answered and therefore he does not want to harp upon the substantial question of law No. (ii) of the order dated 06.11.2023. He submits that essentially this appeal be decided on the substantial question of law framed vide paragraph 4(i) and 4(ii) vide order dated 27.02.2025.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the submissions made the learned counsel for the appellants.

7. Considering the aforesaid submissions and upon going through the impugned judgements and with the consent of the parties, this appeal involves the substantial questions of law No. 4(i) and 4(ii) as framed vide order dated 27.02.2025.

Arguments of the appellants on substantial question of law No. 4(ii) of order dated 27.02.2025

8. The learned counsel for the appellants while referring to the plaint has submitted that the plaint had two schedules i.e. Schedule-A and Schedule-B and the suit was filed for a declaration that the sale-deed No. 3043 dated 15.12.1952 is void and be cancelled and the sale-deed was said to be in connection with Schedule-B property. However, the boundary of the property in the sale-deed did not match. The learned counsel has also submitted that in Schedule-B of the property, the municipal ward No. 15 and part of plot No. 1074 as mentioned in the map to the sale-deed is not mentioned. The learned counsel has also submitted that in the Schedule-A, the plot number has been mentioned as 1455.

9. However, it revealed during the course of hearing that on the body of the sale-deed, the plot No. has been mentioned as 1075 which itself is not matching with the plot number mentioned in the map.

10. The learned counsel has further referred to Order VII Rule 3 and Order XX Rule 9 of CPC to submit that if the description of the property is not matching with that of the sale-deed then under such circumstances, the suit itself was hit by Order VII Rule 3 of CPC and no decree could have been drawn as such a decree would have been a non-executable decree.

11. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1996) 6 SCC 699 (Nahar Singh vs. Harnak Singh & Others) paragraph 5. The learned counsel submits that on account of discrepancy in the description of property, the second substantial question of law is fit to be answered in favour of the appellants. He has also submitted that if the second substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellants, there may not be any need to enter into the first substantial question of law. However, with regard to the first substantial question of law, the learned counsel has submitted that the sale-deed was a registered document and there is a presumption that it was validly executed and the onus was not discharged by the plaintiffs with regard to any discrepancy in the matter of execution of the sale-deed. He has also submitted that the learned courts have given concurrent findings that the sale-deed was validly executed.

12. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 5 SCC 713 (Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain & Others vs. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo) paragraph 19 and 34 to submit that once there is a registered document there is a presumption that the transaction was genuine. He has also submitted that it has been held that as soon as the sale-deed is registered the title passes away to the vendee. He has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 5 SCC

353 (Prem Singh & Others vs. Birbal & Others) paragraph 27 and 28 to submit that if the vendor is a minor and it was void, he has two options to file suit to get the property conveyed thereunder, he can either file a suit within 12 years of the deed or within 3 threes of attaining majority and in the present case, the deed was executed by some of the plaintiffs who were minors but they did not make any such option. He has also submitted that though in the plaint no such plea was taken that some of the plaintiffs were minor at the relevant point of time, but this fact has come up through the written statement but the age of such minors have neither come up in the plaint nor in the written statement. He has also submitted that in the written statement, it has come that some of the plaintiffs were minor at the time of death of their father but nothing has come about their age as on the date of execution of the deed. He has submitted that it has not come either in the plaint or in the written statement as to when the father/husband of the plaintiff No. 1 had expired. The learned counsel has submitted that the plaintiffs never raised a plea that the sale-deed was void on account of the fact that plaintiffs other than the plaintiff No. 1 were minor at the time of execution of the sale-deed.

Arguments of the respondent on substantial question of law No. 4(ii) of order dated 27.02.2025

13. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, while responding to the substantial question of law No. 4(ii) has submitted that the defendants in their written statement neither raised any objection with regard to identity of the property nor they raised any objection that the description of the property as mentioned in the sale-deed was not matching. He has submitted that the parties did not join issue with regard to the identity of the property. Had such an issue been raised, then the plaintiffs could have adduced evidence as to how and why the boundary was not matching. The boundaries may change from time to time . He submits that the area was certainly matching. He has further submitted that since the parties did not join issue with regard to the identity of the

property, there was no occasion to hold that the suit was barred by virtue of Order VII Rule 3 of CPC. The learned counsel has also submitted that Order VII Rule 3 of CPC does not provide that the boundaries of the property are to be mentioned as might have been mentioned in the sale deed. What is important is that the property should be identified. He has submitted that once the identity of the property is not in dispute, the second substantial question of law is also fit to be answered in favour of the respondents.

Arguments of the respondent on substantial question of law No. 4(i) of order dated 27.02.2025.

14. With regard to first substantial question of law, the learned counsel has submitted that as per the written statement, the plaintiffs other than plaintiff No. 1 were minors and therefore in absence of required permission from the court in terms of Section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the sale-deed was void at least so far as the minors are concerned. The learned counsel has further submitted that once the plaintiff stated that she did not execute the sale-deed, the onus was upon the defendants to prove that she had executed the sale-deed and this onus was not discharged by the defendants and therefore no adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintiffs merely because the deed was registered.

Rejoinder arguments of the appellants.

15. In response, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is a presumption in connection with registered sale-deed and it was for the plaintiffs to prima-facie rebut the presumption and no steps were taken by the plaintiffs to get the finger print or signature examined through any finger print expert or handwriting expert. He has submitted that along with the written submissions, he shall furnish a judgment on this point.

16. Arguments concluded.

17. The parties to give short synopsis of arguments on the basis of the arguments advanced in open court.

18. Judgement is reserved.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul