Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Anita Mahato vs Devan Mahato @ Devendra Nath Mahato on 5 May, 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 ... ... Appellant
Versus
Devan Mahato @ Devendra Nath Mahato
... ... Respondent
With
S.A. No. 49 of 2023
Smt. Anita Mahato ... ... Appellant
Versus
Devan Mahato @ Devendra Nath Mahato
... ... Respondent
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondents :
---
11/05.05.2025 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. He has submitted
that the defendant is the appellant in both the cases. The suit was filed
for cancellation of sale-deed by alleging that the sale-deed was
executed under influence of intoxication. The consideration amount of
the sale- deed was Rs. 2,50,000/-.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
learned trial Court cancelled the sale-deed by referring to section 46 of
Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and such cancellation was beyond
the pleadings of the respective parties, inasmuch as, it was never the
case of either party that the sale-deed was fit to be cancelled on
account of it being violative of section 46 of Chotanagpur Tenancy
Act and that both the parties were belonging to Backward Class
community. The learned counsel submits that both the plaintiff and the
defendant were aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned trial
Court. The defendant was aggrieved in connection with cancellation
of the sale-deed and the plaintiff was aggrieved by the direction to
refund the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- and therefore, two different
appeals were filed.
3. The learned 1st appellate Court sustained the cancellation of
sale-deed again by referring to section 46 of Chotanagpur Tenancy
Act and without consideration that it was not based on any
foundational pleading. So far as refund of Rs. 2,50,000/- is concerned,
the learned 1st appellate Court interfered with that direction by
observing that no such relief was prayed before the learned Court.
4. The learned counsel has submitted that consequently the
defendant is deprived of the land as well as the consideration amount
which was given by the defendant. He submits that the S.A. No. 34 of
2023 be admitted on substantial questions of law nos. I and IV as
suggested in the memo of appeal of S.A. No. 34 of 2023.
5. The learned counsel has further submitted that on the same day,
there was another sale-deed executed in favour of the plaintiff which
was sale-deed no. 3641 dated 26.07.2006.
6. So far as S.A. No. 49 of 2023 is concerned, the learned counsel
for the appellant has submitted that it may be admitted on substantial
question of law no. VI, as suggested in the memo of appeal of S.A.
No. 49 of 2023.
7. S.A. No. 34 of 2023 is admitted on the following substantial
questions of law:
"I. whether both the learned courts below erred in travelling
beyond the pleadings and giving a perverse finding regarding
applicability of section 46 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act in the
present case, as plaintiff nowhere pleaded that he belonged to
backward class and further neither any issue was framed on
this point nor any evidence was led by the plaintiff?
II. Whether both the learned courts below erred in not
considering that when plaintiff himself admitted to have
executed sale-deed no. 3641, dated 26.07.2006 whereby he
purchased a plot of land from Trilok Mahto after paying Rs.
3,00,000/-, then Registered sale deed No. 3640, also dated
26.07.2006 executed by the plaintiff himself for a consideration
amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- could not be said to have been
executed by him under intoxication?"
8. S.A. No. 49 of 2023 is admitted on the following substantial
question of law:
"Whether the learned lower appellate court erred in
discarding the judgment of the learned trial court in terms of
returning of the consideration amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the
appellant as same amounts to unjust enrichment to the
plaintiff?"
9. Issue notice to the sole respondent in both the cases for which
requisites under ordinary process be filed in both the cases separately
within two weeks.
10. Let the records be called for from the learned court concerned.
11. Post these cases on 30th July 2025 under appropriate heading.
12. Let this order be communicated to the learned Court concerned
through 'FAX/email'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
