Jharkhand High Court

Surajnath Sahu vs Prasad Rautia on 6 May, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                                                               2025:JHHC:13701




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             S.A. No. 191 of 2017
           Surajnath Sahu, son of Late Rameshwar Sahu, resident of Village,
           P.O. & P.S.- Chainpur, District- Gumla
                           ...       ...        Appellant/Appellant/Defendant
                                         -Versus-
           1. Prasad Rautia, son of Late Manbir Rautia
           2. Laxmi Kumari, Daughter of Late Manbir Rautia
           3. Balmait Kumari, wife of Late Manbir Rautia (Deleted vide
              order dated 24.03.2025)
                           ...     ... Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs
           4. Tahnu Rautia
           5. Mahnu Rautia
              Respondent Nos.4 and 5 both sons of Late Surjan Singh,
              resident of Village, P.O. & P.S.- Chainpur, District- Gumla
                           ...       ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
                                   ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellant : Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Arvind Prakash Malakar, Advocate

---

10/06.05.2025 Heard Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the Judgement dated 18.08.2016 (decree dated 09.09.2016) passed by the learned District Judge-VI, Gumla in Title Appeal No.22 of 2009 whereby the title appeal has been dismissed. The trial court's judgment is dated 20.06.2009 (decree dated 04.07.2009) passed by the learned Munsif, Gumla in Title Suit No.12 of 1999 whereby the suit was decreed and the registered Sale Deed No.2672/1998 dated 07.12.1998 was declared to be void, illegal and inoperative and the Defendant No.1 was directed to handover the possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 is the appellant before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that during the pendency of the partition suit, the elder son of the family sold 5 decimals of land to the Defendant No.1 vide registered sale deed dated 07.12.1998. At that point of time, the appeal arising out of the partition suit was pending. The Partition Suit No.8 of 1993 was dismissed and the corresponding appeal was Title Appeal No.32 of

2025:JHHC:13701

1994. The learned counsel submitted that after the sale of the property, there was a compromise in the partition suit dated 11.12.1998 and as per the compromise, each of the parties to the suit was to remain in possession of their respective portions and was not to sell it to anybody else. As a sequel to the compromise, the plaintiff had unilaterally executed a deed of cancellation dated 14.12.1998. However, having realized that unilateral cancellation of sale deed is not permissible in law, he had filed the present suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 07.12.1998.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the vendor of the appellant is Respondent No.4, who was Defendant No.2 in the suit and the present appellant namely Surajnath Sahu, who is the purchaser of the property covered by sale deed dated 07.12.1998, was the Defendant No.1 in the suit. The suit was filed by Prasad Rautia, son of Manbir Rautia, and Laxmi Kumari, daughter of Late Manbir Rautia.

5. The learned counsel has submitted that after having executed the sale deed dated 07.12.1998, the parties in the Title Appeal No.32 of 1994 had entered into compromise and by that time, the right, title and interest with respect to 5 decimals of land was already transferred in favour of the appellant, and therefore, the learned courts were not justified in cancelling the registered sale deed dated 07.12.1998 and declaring the same as null and void and inoperative in the eyes of law.

6. The learned counsel has submitted that the principle of lis pendens will not apply as the compromise was collusive between the parties to the Partition Suit No.8 of 1993/Title Appeal No.32 of 1994.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the Defendant No.1- appellant, this Court finds that the case of the plaintiffs was that the land under Khata No.101, Plot No.945 area 0.05 acres of Village Chainpur, District Gumla was recorded in the name of Pillu Rautia and Bandhu Rauta jointly, but in the remark column regarding possession, it was shown according to their mutual partition and possession. The aforesaid land [the suit land] was under the possession of Pillu Rautia who was the father of Manbir Rautia. It was their further case that both the recorded tenants were separated and after the

2025:JHHC:13701

death of recorded tenants, their heirs were in separate possession according to their actual possession. In the year 1993, the father of Defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed Partition Suit No.8 of 1993 against Manbir Rautia for half share, but the suit was dismissed holding that land was already partitioned before the survey. The appeal was filed and numbered as Title Appeal No.32 of 1994 and the title appeal was disposed of on 29.01.1999 in terms of compromise between the parties wherein it was agreed that the plot in possession of each will not be sold by any other party. The suit property specifically shown in the schedule of the plaint was recorded in possession of Pillu Rautia and the same is still in possession of the Respondent No.1 to 3 being the legal heirs of Pillu Rautia. It was the case of the plaintiffs that Tanhu Rautia was cheated by Surajnath Sahu, who got executed forged Sale Deed No.2672 of 1998 on 07.12.1998 with a wrong boundary and without any description of the deed and without payment of consideration in absence of Defendant No.3. However, a deed of cancellation was executed on 14.12.1998 cancelling the earlier deed dated 07.12.1998. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the suit land was under the possession of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Title Appeal No.32 of 1994 was pending and therefore Tanhu Rautia had no right to transfer the suit land during the pendency of the suit.

8. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the sale deed dated 07.12.1998 executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 was forged with a view to deprive the original plaintiff from his raiyati land and was without consideration, inoperative and without knowledge of concerned defendants. It was asserted that the sale deed created cloud with respect to the title of the property and consequently the suit was filed for a further declaration that the sale deed dated 07.12.1998 was illegal, void and not binding upon the plaintiffs.

9. The original plaintiff was Manbir Singh Rautia; his legal heirs were substituted in the suit. The Defendant No.1 was Surajnath Sahu, Defendant No.2 was Tahnu Singh Rautia and Defendant No.3 was Mahnu Singh, who had appeared and filed their written statement.

2025:JHHC:13701

10. It was the specific case of the Defendant No.1 namely, Surajnath Sahu that the recorded tenants never partitioned the land and they were in a separate possession in some of the lands whereas other properties were in joint possession of the recorded tenants and that the respondent himself sold some of the land of R.S Khata No.101 against the alleged compromise in Title Appeal No.32 of 1994 and thereupon the purchaser of the plaintiff/ respondents constructed plinth and pucca wall of about 5 feet for constructing his house.

11. It was the case of the Defendant No.1, Surajnath Sahu, that according to mutual partition between the recorded tenants, about 0.72 acres of land was in possession of Surjan Rautia since last 25 years which came in possession of his two sons Tahnu Rautia and Mahnu Rautia. Further as per the oral partition between sons of Surjan Rautia, the aforesaid 0.72 acres of land was divided into two parts and thus Defendant Nos.2 and 3 came in separate possession over 0.36 acres of land each and consequently Defendant No.2 Tahnu Rautia, approached Defendant No.1 for selling 0.05 acres of land out of his share of land which was sold to him vide sale deed dated 07.12.1998 after receiving full consideration amount and within the knowledge of plaintiffs and Defendant No.3. Thereafter at no point of time, any objection was raised and the Defendant No.1 began to live there after constructing four rooms and boundary over the said land.

12. It was alleged by Defendant No.1 that it was the original plaintiff obtained LTI of Defendant No.2 on various papers by putting him in dark on the pretext that these documents have to be filed in Title Appeal No.32 of 1994 and therefore the deed of cancellation and notice by advocate were false, illegal and not made by Defendant No.2 or within his knowledge. It was also the case that Defendant No.1 got the suit land mutated in Circle Office vide Mutation Case No.59R27 of 1999 and was paying rent to the government.

13. So far as Defendant No.2 is concerned, he filed a separate written statement in support of Defendant No.1 and took similar stand inter alia stating that Defendant No.2 sold 0.05 acres of suit land to Defendant No.1 out of his share of land after receiving consideration

2025:JHHC:13701

amount within the knowledge of the original plaintiff and Defendant No.3 and Defendant No.1 came in peaceful possession over the suit land by constructing a boundary wall and a house and got the property mutated within the knowledge of the parties. The filing of the partition suit as well as the title appeal was admitted by Defendant No.2. It was also asserted that the Defendant No.2 is an illiterate person and he was brought by the original plaintiff to the court saying that compromise petition in Title Appeal No.32 of 1994 for partition of the suit land has to be filed and he never executed any deed of cancelation dated 14.12.1998, nor he sent any legal notice to Defendant No.1 within his knowledge. It was asserted that Defendant No.2 had every right to sell the land of his share for legal necessity and the suit land was under his possession at the time of execution of the deed which was sold after receiving full consideration amount within the knowledge of the original plaintiff and Defendant No.3. It was asserted that the sale deed dated 07.12.1998 executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 was genuine and legal and no fraud has been committed upon Defendant No.2 by the Defendant No.1. The Defendant No.3 also filed a separate written statement who favoured the plaintiff.

14. The learned trial framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form?

2. Has the Plaintiffs/Respondent got valid cause of action for the suit?

3. Is the Deed No. 2672/98 dated 07.12.98 executed by Tahnu Singh in favour of Surajnath Sahu is valid and legal?

4. Whether Deed No. 2672/98 dated 07.12.98 has been cancelled by deed No. 2737/98 dated 14.12.98?

5. Whether the suit land is in possession of Plaintiffs/Respondent or not?

6. Is the Plaintiffs/Respondent entitled to any relief or reliefs as claimed?

2025:JHHC:13701

15. The learned Munsif decided Issue No.3 in favour of the plaintiffs and against the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 holding that the sale deed dated 07.12.1998 executed by Tahnu Singh Defendant No.2 in favour of Surajnath Sahu Defendant No.1 was void and illegal. So far as Issue No.4 is concerned, the learned Munsif held that the cancellation deed dated 14.12.1998 was valid and proper and also decided the Issue No.4 in favour of the plaintiffs. With respect to possession of the suit land i.e. Issue No.5, it was decided in favour of the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and against the plaintiffs. The Issue No.1, 2 and 6 were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the Defendant Nos.1 and 2.

16. The learned first appellate court framed the following points for determination at paragraph no.12:

(1) Whether Plaintiffs/Respondent had a valid right, title and possession over the suit land?

(2) Whether the Sale Deed No.2672/98 dated 07.12.98 was valid, legally executed and binding upon the parties? (3) Whether the Judgement and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Gumla is in accordance with law and whether any interference in the same is warranted?

17. The learned first appellate court considered the core issue in Paragraph-15 by observing that in order to decide the right, title of Defendant No.2 Tahnu Rautia over the suit land, it would be important to see as to whether the suit land was partitioned and ever came in the share of Tahnu Rauita which made him entitled to sell out the same in favour of Defendant No.1 Surajnath Sahu.

18. The learned first appellate court considered the materials on record and recorded in Paragraph No.18 that there is consistent and unbroken oral evidences about the factum of previous partition of the land between Pillu Rautia and Bandhu Rautia and the suit land fell under the share of Pillu Rautia and this is also corroborated by Exhibit-6 which is the Judgment passed by learned Sub-Judge-I, Gumla in Partition Suit No.8 of 1993 dated 08.07.1994 wherein the partition suit filed by Surjan Rautia against Mahnu Rautia for half

2025:JHHC:13701

share in the suit property has been dismissed. The learned court also referred to Exhibit-7 at Paragraph No.19 which is the order passed in Title Appeal No.32 of 1994 which records filing of a compromise petition dated 11.12.1998 stating inter alia that both the parties have compromised outside the court and as per compromise, Plot Nos.356, 357, 358 of Khata No.101 upon which the litigation was pending will be under the joint possession of both the parties. It will be fought by them together whereas rest of the land under Khata No.101 including Plot Nos.945 and 102 which as per possession recorded in possession column of revisional survey as well as oral partition would remain as such and none of the parties would sell the land under possession of other party. The aforesaid title appeal was disposed of on the basis of compromise making the compromise petition as a part of the decree. The findings recorded in Paragraph- 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the impugned judgement are as under:.

"18. Apart from the aforesaid consistent and unbroken oral evidences the factum of previous partition of the land between Pillu Rautia and Bandhu Rautia and the suit land falling under share of Pillu Rautia is also corroborated by Ext.-6 which is judgement passed by Ld. Sub Judge-I, Gumla, in P. S. No.08/93 dated 08.07.94 wherein and whereunder the partition suit filed by Surjan Rautia against Mahnu Rautia for partition of his half share in the suit property has been dismissed holding, interalia, that ..."so in view of the matter it is clear that previous partition is proved in respect of the suit property" and also that " in view of the discussions of the issue as above I do hereby find and hold that these issues are decided in negative (i.e. against the Plaintiffs/Respondent)".

19. Further we also find corroboration of aforesaid fact in Ext.- 7 which is an order passed by the D.J. Gumla in T.A.No.32/94 (Surjan Vs. Manbir Rautia) wherein there is filed a compromise petition dated 11.12.98 stating, interalia, that both the parties have compromised outside the Court, as per the compromise plot No. 356, 357, 358 of Khata No.101 upon which litigation is pending will be under joint possession of both parties, it will be fought by them together;

2025:JHHC:13701

(including plot No.945) and 102, which is as per possession recorded in possession column of Revisional Survey as well as oral partition would remain as such and none of the parties would sell land under possession of other party. It was on this basis that the aforesaid Title Appeal was disposed off on the basis of compromise making compromise petition a part of the decree.

20. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid consistent and coherent oral evidences which is duly corroborated by Exts-6 and 7 it is clear that the suit land under Khata No.101 plot No. 945 area 5 Decimal was very much under possession of Plaintiff Manbir Rautia which was inherited by him being successor of Pillu Rautia having right, title over1.35 Acres of land under Khata No. 101 Plot No.945 duly shown in his share in R.S Khatiayan (Ext.-5).

21. This fact is further corroborated and fortified by Ext.-4 which is order of the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla dated 14.10.01 passed in Revision Appeal No. 62R15/2000 in the case of Surajnath 13 Sahu Versus Manbir Rautia filed against order of the DCLR Gumla in case No. 02/99-2000 in respect of Khata No.101 plot No.945 area 5 decimal (out of 1.35 Acres) holding interalia that "after decision in T.A.32/94 the deed of transfer becomes void. Perusal of order passed by the learned Court below shows that all these facts were taken into consideration by the Lower Court and further that under above facts and circumstances and this revision petition is disallowed and the stay order passed earlier is vacated".

19. The learned first appellate court further considered the materials on record in Paragraph-26 and ultimately held in Paragraph-33 as under:

"26. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid analysis of oral and documentary evidences adduced on behalf of Plaintiffs as well as Defendants, I come to find and hold that on the basis of his pleadings supported by oral and documentary evidences on record as mentioned above, the Plaintiffs has been duly able to

2025:JHHC:13701

prove that the partition amongst Pillu Rautia and Bandhu Rautia in respect of Khata No.101 Plot No. 945 alongwith other plots indeed took place prior to entry in the Record of Rights and it was only thereafter that entry in the Record of Rights was made in the Column showing possession of the suit land in favour of Pillu Rautia, father of original Plaintiff Manbir Rautia.

Whereas on the other hand, though the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have pleaded in their written statement that there was no partition between Bandhu Rautia and Pillu Rautia in respect of the suit land amongst others. But on the basis of oral and documentary evidence they have not been able to substantiate the same and prove that the suit land fell into the share of Defendant No.2 Tahnu Rautia, having a right, title and possession over the suit land which he validly transfered in favour of Defendant No.1 Surajnath Sahu vide Sale Deed No.2672/98 dated 07.12.98.

33. Therefore, on the basis of above discussion it stands proved beyond doubt that there was very much a partition of the suit land amongst others between Bandhu Rautia and Pillu Rautia and the suit land was under share of original Plaintiffs Mahbir Rautia S/O Pillu Rautia whereas Defendant No.2 had no right, title, or interest therein. Therefore, the impugned transfer of land of area 0.05 acres by Defendant No.2 Tahnu Rautia in favour of Defendant No.1 vide Sale Deed No.2672/98 dated 07.12.98 was illegal and void."

20. This Court finds that both the courts have recorded findings that there was already a previous partition amongst the family members and the learned first appellate court has categorically recorded a finding that there was a partition of the suit land amongst others between Bandhu Rautia and Pillu Rautia and the suit land was under

the share of original plaintiff namely, Manbir Rautia, son of Pillu Rautia and Defendant No.2 had no right, title or interest therein. The learned first appellate court has also recorded that the impugned transfer of land of area 0.05 acres by Defendant No.2 Tahnu Rautia in

2025:JHHC:13701

favour of Defendant No.1 vide Sale Deed No.2672 of 1998 dated 07.12.1998 is illegal and void.

2. This Court finds that the learned courts have given concurrent finding that the vendor of the appellant did not have the right, title and interest over the property which was sold to the appellant, who was Defendant No.1 in the suit. The law is well settled that a vendor cannot transfer better title than what he possesses. There is no scope for reappreciation of evidences in absence of any perversity and in view of the aforesaid findings of facts recorded by the learned courts, this Court finds no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal, which is hereby dismissed.