Jharkhand High Court
Most. Satwanti Devi & Others vs Sushil Kumar Tiwari & Others on 4 March, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S. A. No. 263 of 2019
Most. Satwanti Devi & Others ... ... Appellants
Versus
Sushil Kumar Tiwari & Others ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. T. N. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents : None
---
th
15/4 March 2025
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
2. It is submitted that the appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit. The
suit was filed for declaration of sale deed No. 93/56 dated 18.10.2002
executed by Sarwan Tiwari father of the plaintiffs in favour of defendant
No. 1 Smt. Shanti Devi as void-ab-initio and further that the plaintiffs
have got right to get such a declaration as the sale deed it voidable and
the suit property was the coparcenary property. The learned counsel for
the appellants has submitted that no consideration amount was paid to the
father who executed the sale-deed dated 18.10.2002 in favour of the
defendant No. 1.
3. He has also submitted that the father though was alive at the time of
filing the suit but was not made party as he was a person of unsound
mind. Upon a query of this Court, the learned counsel has further
submitted that the suit property was purchased in the name of the father of
the plaintiffs vide sale-deed No. 9175 and 9176 both dated 08.12.1982 but
the same was also not exhibited before the learned court and while
explaining the reason for not exhibiting the sale-deeds by virtue of it the
father had purchased the property, the learned counsel has submitted that
the fact that the property was purchased in the name of the father is not in
dispute. He has further submitted that the suit property was coparcenary
property.
4. The learned counsel has also submitted with respect to the recital
mentioned in Exhibit-B it was pleaded by the plaintiffs that the alleged
sale-deed was not executed in sound state of mind by the father of the
plaintiffs and at the time of execution of alleged sale-deed, the father of
the plaintiffs was suffering from mental deceases and he was neither
capable of knowing anything nor he was capable to transfer the suit land.
In support of the plea of unsoundness of mind of the father, the plaintiffs
had also produced two medical papers i.e. exhibit-1 and exhibit-1/a and
sought a declaration that the sale-deed was void-ab-initio. At the same
time, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it was
mentioned in exhibit-B itself that the father of the plaintiffs was
transferring the property which included the right of the plaintiffs as well.
5. The learned counsel has submitted that in the sale-deed itself it was
mentioned that the consideration amount would be paid later on by
making appropriate endorsement in the parcha but there was no evidence
in connection with any endorsement made in the parcha showing payment
of consideration amount.
6. Accordingly, on account of the aforesaid reasons, firstly, that the
property was the coparcenary property and secondly, no consideration was
paid, the sale-deed executed by the father of the plaintiffs in favour of the
defendant No. 1 was void-ab-initio, null and void. He submits that both
the courts have failed to appreciate these aspects of the matter and
accordingly substantial question of law be framed and this appeal be
admitted for final hearing.
7. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2018 (4) JBCJ 298 [SC] (Kehar
Singh (D) vs. Nachittar Kaur), paragraph 17 to submit that in the said
case, the High Court had allowed the appeal filed by the defendants and
dismissed the suit by holding that the suit land was ancestral property of
the family and the Karta had a right to sell the suit land on account of
legal necessity and such fact having been duly mentioned in the sale-deed,
the sale was held to be bona fide ,legal and for valuable consideration.
The learned counsel submits that there is no mention about the legal
necessity in the sale-deed executed by the father of the plaintiffs in favour
of defendant and therefore the coparcenary property was sold without
legal necessity and consequently the sale-deed was void-ab-initio.
8. The arguments of the appellants is concluded on the point of
framing substantial question of law.
9. Post this case on 11.03.2025 for orders.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
