Ramesh Chandra Ghosal vs Dhananjoy Mondal
2025 Latest Caselaw 277 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ramesh Chandra Ghosal vs Dhananjoy Mondal on 8 May, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                                                         2025:JHHC:13980




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              S.A. No. 366 of 2019
          1. Ramesh Chandra Ghosal, aged about 75 years, son of Late Kali
             Pado Ghosal
          2. Smt. Kalpana Ghosal, aged about 57 years, wife of Late Harish
             Chandra Ghosal
          3. Rabindra Nath Ghosal, aged about 42 years, son of Late Harish
             Chandra Ghosal
          4. Amit Kumar Ghosal, aged about 40 years, son of Late Harish
             Chandra Ghosal
             All residents of Main Road, Chas, P.O.- Chas, P.S.- Chas,
             District Bokaro
          5. Smt. Mohuwa Chatterjee, aged about 32 years, wife of Shri
             Raja Chatterjee, daughter of Late Harish Chandra Ghosal, at
             present resident of Palika Bazar, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S.-
             Deoghar, State Jharkhand
          6. Subash Chandra Ghosal, aged about 37 years, son of Late
             Amrendra Nath Ghosal, resident of Main Road, Chas, P.O. &
             P.S.- Chas, District- Bokaro
                                 ...     ... Appellants/Appellants/Plaintiffs
                                      -Versus-
          Dhananjoy Mondal, son of Late Hari Ram Mondal, resident of
          Village- Narayanpur, Tolla Chatamara, P.O.- Narayanpur, P.S.-
          Pindrajora, District- Bokaro
                          ...       ... Respondent/Respondent/Defendant
                                 ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

            For the Appellants     : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
            For the Respondent     :
                               ---
12/08.05.2025     Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
     appellants.

2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against concurrent findings recorded by both the courts.

3. The learned trial court had dismissed the suit vide Judgment dated 29.11.2017 (Decree dated 08.12.2017) passed in Title Suit No.36 of 2007 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bokaro. The learned first appellate court has affirmed the Judgement dated 29.11.2017 vide Judgement dated 06.08.2019 (Decree dated 09.08.2019) in Title Appeal No.01 of 2018 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro.

2025:JHHC:13980

4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the plaintiffs had filed the suit seeking cancellation of sale deed executed by the appellants in favour of the defendant. He has submitted that a ground of undue influence was taken for the cancellation of the sale deed.

5. The learned counsel has submitted that initially the plaintiffs had sold 06 decimals of land by a registered sale deed to the defendant and they further sold the adjoining 01 decimal land to the defendant. However, the defendant was trying to encroach upon the remaining raiyati land of the appellants and therefore the suit was filed for cancellation of the earlier sale deed.

6. Upon perusal of the impugned judgments, this Court finds that the plaintiffs claimed to be the rightful owner of the Schedule A property purchased by them vide registered deed dated 13.12.1968 and another portion vide registered deed dated 17.03.1988. Further case of the plaintiffs was that since they were in urgent need of money, they desired to dispose of a portion of the Schedule A land mentioned in Schedule B property of the plaint and the defendant agreed to purchase the same and the plaintiffs sold 06 decimals of land vide registered deed dated 13.05.2002.

7. Further case of the plaintiffs was that during the execution of the sale deed, the plaintiffs measured the Schedule B property and prepared a plan by a recognized amin in presence of the defendant and the area of 06 decimals has been measured from North to South 37'2"

from East to West on the Northern side 78' and East to West on the Southern Side 63' and the said plan is part and parcel and was attached with the sale deed dated 13.05.2002. The defendant started construction over the property and covered the same and obtained the possession of 06 decimals of land of Schedule B property.

8. Further case of the plaintiffs was that the defendant expressed his desire to purchase another portion of suit land adjacent to the Schedule B property to the extent of 01 decimal and the plaintiffs again measured the same in presence of the defendant and executed a sale deed vide registered sale deed dated 03.07.2006. During the

2025:JHHC:13980

execution of the sale deed, both the parties again prepared a plan by a recognized amin of an area of 01 decimal and duly measured from North to South 5'1", East to West 78' details of which was mentioned in Schedule B/1 of the plaint.

9. It was further case of the plaintiffs that during subsequent measurement of 01 decimal of the land, it transpired that the defendant had violated and the matter of measurement of the Schedule B land of an area of 06 decimals and grabbed a major portion of the land from the northern side of the Schedule B land and demolished the wall of the northern side of Schedule B land with an intention to grab more land with Schedule B land. There was also a joint measurement with amin and a difference between the parties was resolved in the month of June 2007 whereby the defendant agreed to acquire 07 decimals of land of the aforesaid two sale deeds, but later on the plaintiffs came to know that defendant is intending to extend the northern boundary of the Schedule B property to which the plaintiffs raised objection and due to this the plaintiffs became very apprehensive and ultimately the suit was filed seeking cancellation of registered Sale Deed No.2482 dated 13.05.2002.

10. The suit was filed seeking cancellation of the aforesaid Sale Deed No.2482 dated 13.05.2002 and the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that for the other sale deed, another suit was filed.

11. The defendant contested the suit.

12. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration:

I. Whether this suit is maintainable in its present form?

II. Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action for the present suit?

III. Whether this suit is barred by the provisions of the Limitation Act?

IV. Whether this suit is hit by the principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence? V. Whether this suit is barred by the provisions of the Specific Relief Act?

2025:JHHC:13980

VI. Whether this suit is bad for non-joiner of the necessary parties of the suit?

VII. Whether this suit is properly valued and adequate court fee has been filed thereon?

VIII. Whether defendant is trying to encroach excessive land out of land purchased from the plaintiffs vide sale deed nos.2482 dated

13.05.2002 and 4646 dated 03.07.2006, total area of 07 decimals, and in order to encroach in the rest land of plaintiffs, they tried to extend the northern wall of Schedule 'B' land of plaint?

IX. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree as sought for?

X. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to get any other relief or reliefs?

13. The learned trial court decided the Issue Nos. I, II, III, VIII, IX and X against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant and the Issue Nos. IV, V, VI and VII against the defendant.

14. The learned first appellate court considered the main issues from Paragraph-5 onwards. The learned first appellate court also considered the materials on record and formulated one main point for determination at Paragraph-8 as to whether the registered sale deeds involved in the case could be set aside on the ground that the defendant was trying to encroach upon the properties.

15. The learned first appellate court has considered the materials on record and relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353 (Prem Singh & Ors. Vs. Birbal & Ors.) wherein it has been observed that a registered document is prima facie valid and when a document is valid, no question can arise for cancellation. The learned first appellate court also observed that no ground for cancellation of the sale deed was made out by the appellants and ultimately dismissed that appeal. The learned 1st appellate court held that as per the plaint the sale deed was not sought to be cancelled on account of non-payment of consideration or on ground of fraud, collusion etc. and the evidence of the plaintiff that with respect to sale of 1 decimal of land, no consideration was paid could not be considered in absence of

2025:JHHC:13980

foundational pleadings to that effect. The learned 1 st appellate court also recorded that so far as sale deed involved in the case bearing number 2482 dated 13.05.2002 is concerned, there is mention of payment of consideration amount and the other sale deed no. 4646 dated 03.07.2006 was not even produced by the plaintiffs. It is important to note that this suit was relating only to the sale deed bearing number 2482 dated 13.05.2002 by which 6 decimals of land was sold by the plaintiffs to the defendant.

16. After going through the impugned judgments, this Court finds that both the learned courts have considered the materials on record and have found that no ground for cancellation of the sale deed involved in the suit was made out. Admittedly, there was no such ground of fraud or non-payment of consideration etc.

17. This Court finds no substantial question of law is involved in this case and accordingly, this second appeal is hereby dismissed.

18. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/