Jharkhand High Court
Manmohan Keheri Son Of Late Motilal ... vs Jitendra Kumar Sahu on 11 November, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:33604 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 84 of 2018
1. Manmohan Keheri son of late Motilal Keshari aged about 55 years
2. Santosh Keshri son of late Motilal Keshari aged about 53 years
3. Jaya Keshri wife of late Vinay Kumar Keshri aged about 43 years
4. Tanvi Keshri daughter of late Vinay Kumar Keshri aged about 6
years minor being represented through her mother Jaya Keshri
All residents of Main Road, Gumla P.O., P.S. and District-Gumla
... ... Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants
Versus
1.Jitendra Kumar Sahu
2. Mahendra Kumar
3. Ajay Kumar
Nos. 1 to 3 sons of Akhileshwar Sahu, resident of Bazar Tanr, P.O.
and P.S. and District- Gumla
4. Udainath Singh son of late Jagarnath Singh
5. Jaidhar Singh son of late Fagu Singh
No. 4 and 5 residents of Baraik Mohalla, P.O. P.S. and District-Gumla
6. Md. Imtiaz
7. Md. Ekbal
8. Md. Mumtaz
9. Md. Sahnawaz
10. Md. Rijwan
No. 6 to 10 sons of Md. Aslam
11. Md. Ekram
12. Md. Anwar
No. 11 and 12 sons of Md. Ibrahim
No. 6 to 12 residents of Bus Stand Road, P.O. P.S. and District-Gumla
13. Rambilash Sahu son of late Ramnarayan Sahu
14. Ashok Sahu son of Late Bal Krishna Sahu
15. Vikash Sahu son of late Bal Krishna Sahu
16. Sunil Kumar Sahu son of late Baldeo Prasad Sahu
17. Bhushan Prasad son of late Ramsagar Prasad Sahu
18. Akhilesh Sahu son of late Ram Sahay Prasad
19. Udai Sahu son of late Ram Sahay Prasad
20. Awadhesh Kumar son of Late Gauri Shankar Sahu
21. Raghunand Prasad Sahu son of late Dhanuk Sahu
No. 13 to 21 residents of village Palkot Road, P.O. P.S. and District-
Gumla... ... Defendants/Respondents/ Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate
---
C.A.V. On 14.10.2025 Pronounced on 11.11.2025
1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and
decree dated 21.09.2017 (decree signed on 13.11.2017) passed by the
learned District Judge, VI, Gumla, whereby Title Appeal No. 3 of 2014 has
( 2025:JHHC:33604 )
been allowed in part and the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2013 (decree
signed on 18.01.2014) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)
No. I, Gumla in Title Suit No. 22 of 2001 to the aforesaid extent has been
confirmed.
2. The suit was filed seeking a declaration of right, title and possession and
if found dispossessed delivery of possession with respect to the suit land and
for declaring that the sale deed No. 2640,2641, 2642 executed on 17.12.1996
are null and void.
3. Arguments of the appellants.
I. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the suit
property in the instant case contained in Plot No. 641, Khata No.
07 area 0.44 acres out of total area of 1.32 acres. He submits that
the plaintiffs are in second appeal and have lost in both the
courts.
II. While giving the background of the case, he submits that the
entire property of 1.32 acres was recorded in the name of two
brothers namely Indru Singh and Chandru Singh and in the
record of rights, half share of each was duly mentioned.
III. Both the recorded tenants vide registered deed dated 24.03.1944
sold 8 decimals of land to Mahatabo Bibi. Chandru Singh died in
the year 1945 leaving behind his widow Manglu Kunwar and
four daughters including one Chengari Kunwar who in turn had
two sons. He further submits that Manglu Kunwar sold entire
1.32 acres of land to her daughter Chengari Kunwar and two sons
vide registered deed dated 30.01.1950. Chengari Kunwar also
sold 33 decimals of land to Mahatabo Bibi vide registered deed
dated 26.03.1953. So, the total land acquired by Mahatabo Bibi
was 41 decimals. The entire property i.e. 41 decimal was sold by
Mahatabo Bibi to her daughter Bibi Aziman vide registered deed
dated 16.03.1962 and Bibi Aziman further sold the entire
property of 41 decimal vide registered deed dated 09.09.1974 to
Moti Lal Keshri, the father of the plaintiff. He has also submitted
that Chengari Kunwar, daughter of Chandru Singh had also sold
35 decimals of land vide registered sale deed dated 05.12.1952 to
Netlal Sahu, the grandfather of the plaintiffs.
IV. So far as Indru Singh is concerned, he expired in the year 1965
leaving behind his only daughter namely Haula Devi, who was
wife of Gajendra Singh. During the life time, Indru Singh sold
his half share of the entire 1.32 acres to his son-in-law Gajendra
Singh vide registered sale deed dated 21.03.1950 and Gajendra
Singh sold the entire half share vide registered deed dated
24.01.1951 to Net Lal Sahu the grandfather of the plaintiff.
( 2025:JHHC:33604 )
Thus, the plaintiffs acquired 66 decimal of land, half of 1.32
acres through Indru Singh and 41 decimals through Chandru
Singh total being 107 decimals.
V. The learned counsel has submitted that since Manglu Kunwar
was bent upon selling the properties after death of her husband
Chandru Singh, therefore a Title Suit No. 194/65 of 1946-48 was
instituted against Manglu Kunwar seeking injunction against her
and restraining her from selling the suit property. The same was
decreed on 30.11.1948. She filed an appeal which was
numbered as Appeal No. 4/36 of 1949 and the appeal was also
dismissed.
VI. He has further submitted that so far as the defendants are
concerned, they claimed that on 03.01.1967 Chengari Kunwar
daughter of Manglu Kunwar again sold 44 decimals of land to
Md. Aslam who in turn sold vide registered deed dated
19.09.1968 to Ram Narayan Sahu who then further sold vide
registered deed on 17.12.1996 to defendant no. 1 to 4. The
defendant came with a plea that there was amicable partition
between Indru Singh and Chandru Singh and the entire suit plot
no. 641 consisting of 1.32 acres fell in the share of Chandru
Singh and therefore his brother namely Indru Singh and his
descendants had no right over the entire plot of 641.
VII. The learned counsel has submitted that in paragraph 8 of the
learned 1st appellate court's judgment, there is a list from
Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-8 which contains all the aforesaid sale deeds
which have been mentioned above. He has also submitted that
there were two other documents which were exhibited those are
exhibit-9 and exhibit 9/a which are the two judgments passed,
one is suit of the year 1946-48 and the other is appellate court'
judgment and this is apparent from paragraph 31 of the judgment
passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court.
VIII. Issues framed by the learned Trial Court is mentioned at
paragraph 6 of the 1st appellate court's judgment and the point of
determination has been mentioned in paragraph 21 of the learned
1st appellate Court's judgment.
IX. The learned counsel has further referred to paragraph 32 of the
learned 1st Appellate court's judgment and has submitted that the
court held that the land transferred by Manglu Kunwar in favour
of her daughter of area of 1.32 acres was valid only up to the
extent of half share of her husband i.e. up to 5.66 acres only as
also that Manglu Kunwar could have sold half share to the extent
of her husband's share. He submits that figures have been
wrongly mentioned in the judgment as out of 1.32 acres, 8
decimal was already sold jointly by both the brothers and upon
deducting 8 decimal what would remained was 1.24 acres and
( 2025:JHHC:33604 )
consequently half share of husband of Manglu Kunwar would
come to 62 decimals only. He submits that the court treated the
entire sale deed (Exhibit-B) as invalid.
X. The learned counsel has also submitted that the learned 1 st
appellate court has also recorded that the sale was beyond
husband's half share in the property and therefore it was in
contravention of the judgment passed by the two civil courts as
contained in exhibit 9 and 9/a whereby Manglu Kunwar was
restrained from selling the property in absence of legal necessity.
XI. The learned counsel has submitted that selling of property by
Manglu Kunwar to the extent of half share of the entire
remaining property i.e. 0.62 acres was valid. He submits that this
aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the
learned courts and the learned courts restricted the validity of
transfer of only 8 acres of suit land in favour of Manglu Kunwar
which was transferred jointly by both the brothers way back in
the year 1944.
XII. The learned counsel has submitted that the judgment passed in
Title Suit No. 194/65 of 1946-48 as well as the judgment and
decree passed in Title Appeal No. 4/36 of 1949 (exhibit-9 and
exhibit 9/a) have not been properly construed by the learned
courts and therefore a substantial question of law arises with
regard to perversity in the matter of construing the aforesaid two
judgments wherein Manglu Kunwar was restrained from selling
the property more than what was allocated to her husband and
she could sell the property only on account of legal necessity and
for certain religious and charitable purposes.
XIII. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this court in
paragraph 28 of the learned 1st Appellate court's judgment which
has referred to the findings recorded in connection with Exhibit-9
and 9/a.
Findings of this Court
4. Case of the plaintiffs.
A. Indru Singh and Chandru Singh both sons of Prayag Singh were
recorded tenant of Khata no. 07 measuring area 1.32 acre bearing
plot no. 641.
B. Both recorded tenants sold 8 decimal land out of 1.32 acres vide
sale deed dated 24.3.1944 in favour of Mahatabo Bibi and
consequently only 1.24 acres of land was left in plot no. 641.
C. Chandru Singh died in jointness in the year 1945 leaving behind
his wife Manglu Kuwar and four daughters while Indru Singh died
( 2025:JHHC:33604 )
in the year 1965 leaving behind only daughter namely Haula Devi
wife of Gajendra Singh.
D. Other properties, that is, Khata no. 8 and khata no. 37 were
recorded in the name of Indru Singh, Chandru Singh and their
cousin Chamar Singh. Chamar Singh died in the year 1940 leaving
behind a minor son Bolo Singh.
E. It is their case that after death of Chandru Singh, Indru Singh was
maintaining Manglu Kunwar W/O late Chandru Singh and her
daughter and also maintaining Bolo Singh S/O Chamar Singh who
died unmarried.
F. It was their case that Manglu Kunwar W/O late Chandru Singh
formed habit of selling joint property. Accordingly, Indru Singh
and Bolo Singh filed title suit 194/65 of 1946-48 which was
decreed on 30.11.1948 holding that Manglu Kunwar W/O late
Chandru Singh was a limited owner and could not alienate the
property without any legal necessity. Manglu Kunwar W/O late
Chandru Singh filed appeal bearing appeal no. 4/36 of 1949 in
which the learned appellate court restricted her right to deal in
husband's property dated 28.5.1949.
G. However, Manglu Kunwar W/O late Chandru Singh disobeyed the
order of the Court and sold all land in khata no. 7,8 and 37 of
village Gumla and Chetar in favour of her daughter Chengari
Kunwar and two grandsons vide registered deed dated 30.1.1950
including residential house of Indru Singh and Bolo Singh.
H. The plaintiffs have stated that the sale deed dated 30.1.50 in
favour of Chengari Kunwar for 1.32 acres of land within plot no.
641 is illegal, void and inoperative.
I. Mangalu Kunwar initiated a proceeding u/s 144 Cr.p.c with
respect to khata no. 07 which was decided in favour of Indru
Singh and others and Manglu Kunwar W/O late Chandru Singh
was directed to file partition suit but she did not comply to file the
suit.
J. It was the case of the plaintiffs that after death of Chandru Singh
the share of Indru Singh under khata no. 7 and 8 was affirmed by
the appellate Court on 28.5.49 and hence 62-acre shares of land
( 2025:JHHC:33604 )
under plot no. 641 came in the share of each brother because both
brother Indru and Chandru Singh earlier had jointly sold 8
decimals of land within khata no. 641.
K. Chengri Kunwar D/O Manglu Kunwar further sold the following
properties in plot no. 641 :-
(i) 35 decimals on 5.12.1952 to Net Lal Sahu. (Ext.- 3/f)
(ii) 33 decimals on 26.3.1953 to Mahatabo Bibi. (Ext.- 8)
(iii) 41 decimals on 16.3.1962 to her daughter Bibi Aziman
and Bibi Aziman on 9.9.74 sold 41 decimals to Moti
Lal Keshari, father of the plaintiff. (Ext.- 3/b and 3
respectively)
(iv) 44 decimals on 3-1-1967 to Md. Aslam. (Ext.- B/1)
L. On 21.3.1950, Indru Singh sold his ½ share to his son -in-law
Gajendra Singh who on 24.1.1951, sold 35 decimal lands to Net
Lal Sahu. (Ext.- 3/d and 3/e respectively)
M. Thus, Plaintiff's father Moti Lal and grandfather Net Lal
purchased total 111 decimal land within plot no. 641 vide exhibit-
3/f; 3/b and 3; 3/d and 3/e.
N. Chengari Kunwar D/O Manglu Kunwar had sold total of 68
decimal in plot no 641 by 23.06.1953, which was more than her
share of 62 decimal.
O. As stated above, Chengari Kunwar D/O Manglu Kunwar sold 44
decimal lands to Md. Aslam dated 3-1-1967, though the land was
in possession of the plaintiffs, which is suit land. Considering the
possession of plaintiffs over the suit property, Md. Aslam sold it
to Ram Narayan Sahu on 19.9.68 which was without any right and
was void and illegal sale.
P. After death of Ram Narayan Sahu, his heirs managed to transfer
44 decimal land to defendant no.1 to 4 namely Jitendra Kumar,
Mahendra Kumar, Ajay Kumar and Udaynath vide sale deed dated
17.12.96 bearing sale deed no. 2640 to 2642 but could not get
possession. It is these sale deeds no. 2640 of 2642 dated
17.12.1996 which are subject matter of challenge in the suit.
Q. The further case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiffs started
construction work over the suit land in the end of April 2008 for
( 2025:JHHC:33604 )
which proceeding u/s 144 Cr.P.C was initiated vide case no.
231/01 and during the proceeding of 144 Cr.P.C the plaintiffs
came to know that Chengari Kunwar had executed sale deed in
favour of Md. Aslam who sold it to Ram Narayan and heirs of
Ram Narayan sold it to defendant no. 1 to 3 and they succeeded to
get revenue rent receipts through mutation proceeding. The
defendants claimed that they had won the miscellaneous case no.
231/01 u/s 144 Cr.P.C on 3.7.01 and claimed their possession. The
cause of action arose from 2.5.08 when the defendants' threatened
plaintiffs and earlier on 27.6.01 when plaintiffs knew about
execution of sale deed in favour of defendant no. 1 to 3 and also
on 2.7.01 when they tried to construct wall over the suit property.
5. Case of the defendant no. 1 to 3
I. The defendant no. 1 to 3 appeared and filed written statement
stating that the suit was not maintainable and was defective for
non-joinder of necessary parties as Matuk Singh and his brother
were not impleaded and Tileshwari Devi mother of defendant no.
1 to 3 was not been made party. It was asserted that the suit was
barred by limitation and also waiver, acquiescence and estoppel
and also hit by the 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
II. It was the case of the defendants that Chandru Singh died in the
year 1942 not in the year 1945 and he was separated since after
R.S operation; There was amicable partition between Indru Singh
and Chandru Singh and the entire suit plot no. 641 allotted in the
share of Chandru Singh; Chengari Kumvar always remain with
her mother Mangalu Kunwar and after death of Chandru Singh,
Manglu Kunwar became the absolute owner under Hindu
Women's Right to Property Act 1937. Chandru Singh had taken
some loan which was to be paid and annual Shradh ceremony of
Chandru Singh was to be performed hence, there was need of
money. Consequently, Chengari Kunwar became ready to
purchase and Manglu Kunwar executed a deed of sale for 1.32
acres of land within plot no. 641 on a valid consideration amount
dated 30.1.1950. It was stated that the remaining three
( 2025:JHHC:33604 )
daughters of Chandru Singh could not inherit the property of
their father before Hindu Succession Act 1956 came into force.
III. It was further case that out of 1.32 acres in plot no 641,
Chengari Kunwar herself sold 44 decimal land in favour of Md.
Aslam, Md. Eqram, Md. Ajum and Md. Anwar all sons of Md.
Ibarahim vide registered sale deed 3167 who came in
possession. Subsequently Md. Aslam and his father sold the
property to Ram Narayan Sahu vide registered sale deed no.
2847 dated 19.9.68 and they came in possession and got the
property mutated in their name. Proforma Defendant Ram
Narayan Sahu sold the same in favour of Tileshwari Devi wife
of Akhileshwar Sahu and in favour of Jitendra Kumar, Ajay
Kumar and Mahendra Kumar all sons of Akhileshwar Sahu and
they came in possession vide Mutation Case No. 452,455 and
453/96-97 dated 21.3.97 and they were paying rent and cess to
the State regularly.
IV. It was also stated that a petition was filed before Circle Officer,
Gumla for demarcation of the land in suit which was ordered
vide demarcation case no. 8/97-98. Upon spot verification, a
report dated 6.1.2000 was submitted and thereafter defendant
nos. 1 to 3 erected walls towards south of the suit land
measuring area 25.15 feet and in the western portion the height
of the wall was 4 feet.
V. It was stated that the recorded tenant Chandru Singh never sold
his land in favour of Mahatabo Bibi along with Indru Singh in
the year 1944. Manglu Kunwar was never maintained by Indru
Singh but she was living with husband separately.
VI. In Miscellaneous Case no. 84/1950 initiation of proceeding u/s
144 Cr.P.C made it clear that Indru Singh had full knowledge
about the sale deed executed by Manglu Kunwar in favour of
her daughter Chengari Kunwar and others which was not
challenged in the suit.
VII. There was amicable partition in between Indru Singh and
Chandru Singh; after death of Chandru, Manglu Kunwar was
( 2025:JHHC:33604 )
the absolute owner hence she sold the property and there was no
question of devolution of property of Chandru Singh with the
share of Indru Singh.
VIII. Chengari Kunwar never sold the suit plot in favour of Net Lal
Sahu in the year 1952 which was said to be a forged document.
Chengari Kunwar never sold any land in favour of Mahatabo
Bibi on 26.3.1953 and if the same is filed, the same be declared
forged.
IX. Neither Net Lal nor Mahatabo Bibi or their heirs came in
possession over suit land.
X. It was further asserted that if any deed has been executed on
21.3.1950 by Indru Singh in favour of his son in law Gajendra
Singh, then it was a clear proof of partition between Indru Singh
and Chandru Singh.
XI. Neither plaintiff nor his vendor Gajendra Singh ever came in
possession over the suit land. It was stated that that Ram
Narayan Sahu and others after purchasing the property came in
possession and they were paying rent to the State and they
validly sold the property in favour of defendant nos. 1 to 3 who
came in possession after making demarcation of land.
XII. It was denied that the defendants wanted to erect wall forcibly,
rather the wall was erected much before 2.5.2001 and it was the
plaintiffs who went to suit land on 2.5.2001 to demolish the
wall. Proceeding u/s 144 Cr.P.C was started vide case no.
231/2000 which was decided in favour of defendant on 27.6.01.
XIII. Chengari Kunwar remained in possession over suit plot till
1967 thereafter she sold to Md. Aslam and others who later on
sold to Ram Narayan Sahu in the year 1968, descendent of
whom sold it to defendant no. 1 to 3 vide three sale deeds all
dated 17.12.96 and defendants came in possession of the
property after mutation. The plaintiffs had no cause of action.
6. The defendant nos. 9 to 15 also filed their written statement
adopting the written statement of defendant nos. 1 to 3. It was asserted
that female heirs of Ram Narayan Sahu have not been made party in
( 2025:JHHC:33604 )
the suit nor Ram Sagar Sahu was made party, hence the suit was
defective for non-joinder of necessary parties. So far as other
defendants are concerned, the proceeding was ex-parte.
The trial court.
7. The following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court: -
(1) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and
have the plaintiffs valid cause of action for the suit?
(II) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder
of necessary parties?
(III) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation, waiver,
acquiescence and estoppel?
(IV) Whether the sale-deed nos. 2640 to 2642 dated
17.12.1996 are illegal and void and without consideration?
(V) Whether the sale-deed executed by Md. Aslam and
others in favour of Ram Narain Sahu is illegal and void?
(VI) Whether the plaintiffs have right title over the suit
land?
(VII) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any other relief
or reliefs as claimed for?
8. The learned Trial Court took up issue no. (VI) stating to be the
most important issue. The learned Trial Court in paragraph no. 26
after discussing the materials on record ultimately held the Chengari
Kunwar herself had declared 66 decimal share in plot no. 641 vide
Ext. 8 which showed that she did not have title over the entire 132
decimal of land in plot no. 641. It was further held that plaintiff
himself has also accepted half share of Chengri in plot no. 641 in the
plaint without boundary. The court also recorded that the plaintiffs
have not been able to establish the location of suit land in the share of
Chengari Kunwar, nor have established their right, title and interest
over the suit land and decided the issue against the plaintiffs. The
finding of the trial Court at paragraph 26 is quoted as under: -
" Having gone through the above discussions, argument
and case law as well as evidences available on the record I
find that Chengri Kunwar herself have declared 66 decimal
share in plot no. 641 vide Ext. 8 which shows that she had
no title over entire 132 decimal land in plot no. 641. hence,
defendants have no occasion to establish that Chengri
Kunwar had title over entire 132 decimal within plot no.
641. Plaintiff himself has also accepted half share of
( 2025:JHHC:33604 )
Chengri in plot no. 641 in plaint without boundary. The
plaintiffs has not been able to established location of suit
land in the share of Chengari Kunwar, nor has established
his right, title and interest over the suit land hence, this
issue is decided against the plaintiff."
9. While deciding issue No. (IV) and (V) vide paragraph 27 the
learned trial Court recorded that Chengari Kunwar has sold 33
decimals land out of her 62 decimal shares in plot no. 641 to Bibi
Mahatabo in the year 1953; Bibi Mahatabo sold it along with previous
purchase of 8 decimals (from Indru Singh and Chandru Singh) to Moti
Lal Keshari. The total 41 decimal in plot no 641 was sold out of 62
decimals including the previous joint sale by recorded tenants and
only 29 (62 minus 33) decimal was left in the share of Chengari
Kunwar. However, Chengari Kunwar sold 44 decimals land to Md.
Aslam in the year 1967 who sold it to Ram Narayan Sahu and heirs of
Ram Narayan Sahu sold it to defendant 1 to 3 vide sale deed no. 2640
to 2642 all dated 17.12.96. The Court held that the sale deed executed
by Md. Aslam and others in favour of Ram Narayan Sahu was valid
up to 29 decimals in khata no. 7 plot no. 641 out of area 62 decimal
which was the share of Chengri in plot no. 641 and thus decided the
issue against the plaintiffs.
10. While deciding issue Nos. I, II, III and VII the court held that
the plaintiffs have not been made the heirs of Indru Singh and
Chandru Singh party to the suit and hence the suit was bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties. The court also recorded that vendor
Gajendra Singh knew about execution of sale deed in favour of
Chengari Kunwar by her mother but he did not bring a suit for
cancellation of the sale deed and the plaintiffs also had not made the
heirs of Chengari Kunwar party in the suit. The Court held that the
suit was barred by limitation, waiver, acquiescence and estoppel and
ultimately dismissed the suit.
The 1st appellate court.
11. The appeal was filed by the plaintiffs. A cross objection was
filed by the defendants stating that the finding of the trial court that
defendants have valid title only to the extent of 0.29 acres out of suit
( 2025:JHHC:33604 )
land of 0.44 acres was erroneous. The court framed the following
points for determination: -
"Point No. A.:- Whether the land sold by Manglu Kunwar to
her daughter and her grand sons on 30-01-1950 (Ext. B) is
legal and valid or not?
Point No. B:- Whether the plaintiffs have right, title over the
suit land measuring 0.44 Acres under plot No. 641 Khata No.
7 of village Chetar, and if so, to what extent?
Point No. C:- Whether the sale deed No. 31/67 dated 03-01-
1967 (Ext. B/1) as well as the sale deed No. 2640 to 2642
dated 17-12-1996 by virtue of which the defendants claim
right, title and possession upon the suit land is illegal, void
and inoperative?
Point No. D:- Whether the judgment and decree passed by
learned Court below is valid and legal and requires any
interference of this Court or not?
12. The learned 1st appellate court decided the point of
determination no. (A) in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants. While deciding the point of determination no. (A) the
learned court recorded as follows: -
"The main issue to be decided is whether the plaintiffs have a
valid right, title, interest and possession over the suit land
measuring 0.44 Acres under Khata No. 7 plot No. 641 which
was relating to point no. (B). But in order to decide the same,
point No. A was required to be decided as to whether the
land sold by Manglu Kunwar to her daughter and her
grandsons on 30-01-1950 (Ext. B) was legal and valid."
13. While deciding the point of determination no. (A) , the learned
1st appellate Court referred to the aforesaid judgment passed in Title
Suit No. 194/65 of 1946-48 [filed by Indru Singh and Bolo Singh
and decreed on 30.11.1948] whereby Manglu Kunwar was restrained
from alienating the joint properties of the suit land. Against this
judgment, Title Appeal No. 4/36 of 1949 was filed and vide judgment
dated 28.05.1949 the learned appellate court restrained Manglu
( 2025:JHHC:33604 )
Kunwar from dealing with the property of the plaintiffs (Indru Singh
and Bolo Singh) and permitted Manglu Kunwar to deal with her
husband's share in the property in which she had widow's estate
which she could alienate for legal necessity and for certain charitable
and religious purposes only.
The learned 1st appellate court held that Manglu Kunwar disobeyed
the said order of the civil Court and sold all the Khatiyani land of R.S.
Khata No. 7 and 8 of village Chetar and R.S. Khata No. 7 of village
Gumla including the house in which Indru Singh and Bolo Singh were
living in favour of one of her daughters, Chengari Kunwar and two
grandsons on 30.01.1950 vide sale deed No. 126 of 1950 (exhibit-B)
and not even a single inch of khatiyani land was left. This also
included 0.08 acres of land of R.S. Khata No. 7, plot no. 641 which
was already sold by both the recorded tenants during their life time on
24.03.1944 itself. The judgements of the trial court and the appellate
court were exhibit-9 and 9/a respectively. Thus, the transfer by
Manglu Kunwar, widow of Chandru Singh, to her daughter
Chengari Kunwar vide sale deed No. 126 of 1950 (exhibit-B) was
held to be against the judgements passed in Title Suit No. 194/65 of
1946-48 (exhibit-9) read with Title Appeal No. 4/36 of 1949 (exhibit-
9/a) . It has been held that Manglu Kunwar indeed had a right to
alienate interest of her husband's share in the suit plot along with
his share in other properties, but she had no right to alienate share
of the property belonging to Indru Singh. The finding of the earlier
title suit and the appellate judgement, Exhibit-9 and 9/a respectively,
have been considered in paragraph 25 to 30 whose relevant portions
have also been quoted in the impugned judgment itself. Further the
findings with regards to point no. (A) has been recorded in paragraph
31 to 34.
14. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that vide exhibit-B
being sale deed dated 30.01.1950, Manglu Kunwar had transferred
altogether 10.46 acres out of total 11.32 acres in khata No. 7,8 and 37
of Mouza Chetar and Khata No. 6 of village Gumla which included
( 2025:JHHC:33604 )
the suit land of 1.32 acres in khata no. 7 of plot no. 641 Mouza Chetar,
District Gumla.
15. The learned court recorded that at best Manglu Kunwar had the
right to alienate the share of her husband in the property i.e. ½ share of
the whole property, which boils down 5.66 acres being ½ share of
total 1.32 acres of land. The learned court recorded that Manglu
Kunwar sold much beyond half share of her husband and the sale was
contrary to the judgment dated 30.11.1948 (exhibit-9) passed in the
earlier Title Suit and the judgment dated 28.05.1949 (exhibit- 9/a)
passed in the Title Appeal.
16. The court further recorded that neither there was any proof of
partition between Indru Singh and Chandru Singh nor there was any
basis to separate or carve out the share of Manglu Kunwar which was
to the extent of 5.66 acres. The court had no option but to treat the sale
deed Exhibit-B as invalid and not binding upon Indru Singh or his
legal heirs and successors and the sale deed (exhibit-B) was held to be
invalid. Consequently, subsequent sales based on exhibit-B were also
held to be invalid.
17. Further, since 8 decimal of land was transferred much prior to
exhibit B jointly by the recorded tenants during their life time, the title
of the plaintiffs was declared only to that extent of the sale deed
exhibit- 3/a dated 24.03.1944 and the area covered by the sale deed
was also found to be clearly identified.
18. After having decided the point of determination no. (A) in
favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, the learned 1st
appellate court decided the point of determination no. (B) vide
paragraph 35 onwards.
19. While deciding point of determination no. (B), the learned 1st
appellate court observed that the suit land measured 0.44 acres in suit
plot no. 641 of Khata No. 7. Out of 1.32 acres of land in plot no. 641,
the plaintiffs claimed ownership of 1.11 acres, out of which 0.35 acres
of land was also sold to Netlal Sahu, grandfather of the plaintiffs who
purchased it from Gajendra Singh on 24.01.1951 (exhibit- 3/e). Upon
( 2025:JHHC:33604 )
consideration of materials on record the learned court held that
exhibit-3/e did not correspond to the suit land.
The court also considered the claim of the plaintiffs over 0.35 acres of
land purchased by Netlal Sahu from Chengari Kunwar on 05.12.1952
vide sale deed No. 1681 of 1952 (exhibit- 3/f) and held that this
property also did not correspond to the suit land for which the Title
Suit was filed.
The court recorded that admittedly these two portions of land covered
by exhibit- 3/e and 3/f were towards the southern portion of the suit
plot no. 641 of khata no. 7, whereas the suit land of 0.44 acres was
situated towards the north. Therefore, it was held that both the sale
deeds exhibit 3/e and 3/f did not correspond to the suit land under
consideration.
20. The learned 1st appellate thereafter considered 3rd piece of
land claimed by the plaintiffs on the basis of Exhibit-3 i.e. sale deed
dated 09.09.1974 executed by Bibi Ajiman in favour of Motilal
Keshari[ father of the plaintiff] for 41 decimals of land and observed
that as per the plaint and also the claim of the plaintiffs, the aforesaid
chunk of 41 decimals consisted of two parts; the 1st part is 8 decimals
of land jointly sold by the recorded tenants ,Chandru Singh and Indru
Singh, to Bibi Mahtabo vide registered sale deed of the year
1944(Exhibit-3/a) whereas 2nd part consisted of 33 decimals of land
which was sold by Changari Kunwar to Bibi Mahtabo vide sale deed
dated 26.03.1953 (exhibit-8). Thus, Bibi Mahtabo acquired total 41
decimals of land through aforesaid two sale deeds, who in turn gifted
41 decimals of land to her daughter Ajiman Bibi on 16.03.1962
(Exhibit-3/b) which in turn was sold by Ajiman Bibi to Motilal
Keshari, the father of the plaintiff, on 09.09.1974 (Exhibit-3). The
findings are as under with respect to 3rd piece of land after having held
that the 1st and 2nd piece of land did not correspond to the suit
property:-
" 38. Whereas the 3rd piece of land claimed by the plaintiffs
is on the basis of Ext. 3 i.e. the Sale Deed dated 09-09-1974
( 2025:JHHC:33604 )
which has been purchased by Motilal Keshari, the father of
the plaintiffs, from Ajiman Bibi.
However, from perusal of the plaint it is apparent and it is
also case of the Plaintiffs that the aforesaid chunk of
0.41Acres of land consists of two parts, out of which first
part is the land of 0.08 Acres jointly sold by Chandru Singh
and Indru Singh to Bibi Mahtabo vide sale deed No. 586 of
1944 (Ext. 3/a or Ext. 3/c) whereas the 2nd part consists of
0.33 Acres of land which has been sold by Chengari Kunwar
to Bibi Mahtabo vide sale deed No. 185 of 1953 dated 26-
03-1953 (Ext.8). Later on, these two pieces of land of 8
decimals and 33 decimals total admeasuring 41 decimals,
were gifted by Bibi Mahtabo to her daughter Ajiman Bibi on
16.03.1962 vide Ext. 3/b and which in turn was sold by
Ajiman Bibi to Motilal Keshari an 09-09-1974 through Sale
deed No. 3207 (Ext.3).
But as it has already been held above that sale of land by
Manglu Kunwar to her daughter Chengari Kunwar etc. on
30-01-1950 vide Ext. B is illegal and void and, therefore, the
aforesaid 2nd part of the land consisting of 0.33 Acres of
land under Sale Deed No. 185 of 1953 dated 26-03-
1953(Ext. 8) cannot be stated to have been validly
transferred from Chengari Kunwar to Bibi Mahtabo and in
turn from Bibi Mahtabo to Motilal Keshari via Ajiman Bibi.
However, so far as the 1" part of land consisting of 0.08
Acres of land which had been jointly sold by Chandru Singh
and Indru Singh on 24-03-1944 vide Ext. 3/a and which was
later on conveyed gifted by Bibi Mahtabo to her daughter
Ajiman Bibi (on 16.03.1962 vide Registered Gift Deed Ext.
3/b) who in turn sold it to Motilal Keshari, the father of
Plaintiffs on 09-09-1974 vide Registered sale Deed Ext.3 is
very much a proper and valid transfer."
21. The learned 1st appellate court held that since sale deed dated
30.01.1950 executed by Manglu Kunwar to Chengri Kunwar (Exhibit-
( 2025:JHHC:33604 )
B) was held to be illegal and void while deciding point of
determination No. A, therefore subsequent transfer by Chengri
Kunwar to Bibi Mahtabo and from Bibi Mahtabo to Motilal Keshari
via Ajiman Bibi cannot be said to be valid transfer.
However, with respect to 1st part of the land consisted of 0.08 acres,
the learned 1st appellate court recorded that it was jointly transferred
by Chandru Singh and Indru Singh on 24.03.1944 vide Exhibit (3/a) to
Bibi Mahtabo, who later on gifted 0.08 acres of land to her daughter
Ajiman Bibi (Exhibit-3/b) who in turn sold it to Motilal Keshari, the
father of the plaintiffs on 09.09.1974 (Exhibit-3). The learned 1st
appellate court held that transfer with respect to property covered by
exhibit-3/a was proper and valid transfer. It was also observed by the
learned 1st appellate court that Exhibit-3/a was relating to a part of the
land situated in north-western side of the suit plot and upon going
through the map and the deed it was recorded that Exhibit-3/a form
part of the suit property towards the North.
22. The learned 1st appellate court held that the plaintiffs have been
able to prove valid right, title and interest over 0.08 acres of land out
of total 0.44 acres in suit plot no. 641 of Khata no. 7 but have not been
able to prove their valid right, title and interest over rest of the suit
land i.e. 0.36 acres out of 0.44 acres. The learned court also held that
two pieces of land i.e. 8 decimals and 33 decimals were distinct and
ultimately held that Exhibit-3 was proper and valid which was with
respect to 8 decimals of land and the remaining sale with respect to 33
decimals of land was invalid.
23. The learned 1st appellate court also observed that the finding of
the learned trial court that the defendants had valid right, title and
interest over 29 decimals of land out of 44 decimals was not correct
and title of the contesting defendants was valid only with respect to 8
decimals of land covered by exhibit- 3/a. Hence, the point of
determination No. B was decided in terms of the aforesaid findings.
24. While considering point of determination No. C as a sequel of
findings recorded in connection with point of determination Nos. A
and B, the learned 1st appellate court was of the view that the lands in
( 2025:JHHC:33604 )
hand of Chengri Kunwar through her mother Manglu Kunwar on
30.01.1950 vide Exhibit-B was itself invalid and therefore subsequent
transferees, namely, Md. Aslam, Ram Narayan Sahu, Ram Bilas Sahu
etc. could not have procured a better title over the said land and
accordingly the title in the hands of subsequent purchasers, that is ,
defendants, vide impugned sale deeds Nos. 2640 to 2642 could not be
treated as valid ones. The point of determination No. C was
accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiffs.
25. Thereafter, the learned 1st appellate court considered point of
determination No. D and held that the learned trial court erred in
dismissing the entire suit of the plaintiffs holding that the defendants
had valid right, title and interest over 29 decimals of the suit land. The
learned 1st appellate court held that although the plaintiffs have not
been able to prove their valid right over whole of the suit land
measuring 44 decimals of land, but they have very much able to prove
their right and title over 0.08 acres of suit land, whereas the
defendants have not been able to prove their entitlement over any
portion of the suit land, much less, over the entire suit land consisting
of 44 decimals of land as claimed in their cross-objection.
26. The learned 1st appellate court thereafter considered the plea
regarding the suit being barred by limitation and also barred on
account of non-joinder of necessary parties and held that the suit was
not barred by limitation as the 3 documents/sale deeds and the
declaration sought for by the plaintiffs were invalid right from the
beginning. On the point of non-joinder of legal heirs of Indru Singh,
the learned court observed that no relief was sought for by the
plaintiffs against the legal heirs of Indru Singh and therefore, they
were not necessary parties in the suit.
27. This Court finds that the learned trial court had considered the
entire case primarily by referring to Khata no. 7 plot no. 641 which
formed a part of the property jointly owned by Indru Singh and
Chundru Singh and failed to consider that there were other properties
also jointly owned by them. The learned trial court further failed to
consider the import and impact of the earlier judgment passed in Title
( 2025:JHHC:33604 )
Suit No. 194/65 of 1946-48 by the learned Additional Munsif, Gumla
(Exhibit-9) read with the judgment passed in 1st appeal arising out of
the said title suit being Appeal No. 4/36 of 1949 decided on
28.05.1949 (Exhibit-9/a) whereby Manglu Kunwar (vendor of
Chengari Kunwar D/o Manglu Kunwar) was restricted to deal only
with her husband's property that too for legal necessity and
charitable/religious purposes but she violated the court's order and
transferred the substantial properties vide exhibit-B to her daughter
Chengari Kunwar in violation of the said order passed in the earlier
title suit.
28. The learned 1st appellate court has rightly considered the import
and impact of Exhibit-9 and 9/a and has ultimately restricted the title
of the plaintiffs only in connection with 8 decimals of land out of suit
property of 44 decimals as claimed by them and also rightly held that
the defendants also have not been able to prove their valid right, title
and interest in connection with any portion of the suit land. The
learned 1st appellate court also recorded that it was not possible to
segregate the ½ share of the Maglu Kunwar and sustain the sale deed
exhibit-B executed by Maglu Kunwar in favour of her daughter
Chengri Kunwar and thereby sustain the subsequent sales by Chengri
Kunwar to that extent. The court recorded that even the house of Indru
Singh was sold by Maglu Kunwar to her daughter Chengri Kunwar
vide exhibit-B. The court recorded that the plaintiffs were claiming
property by virtue of exhibit- 3/e and 3/f which were not related to the
suit property. The plaintiffs were also claiming property by virtue of
exhibit- 3 and 3/a. The claim by virtue of exhibit- 3/a to the extent of 8
decimals sold by both the recorded tenants in the year 1944 which was
late transferred to the plaintiffs was sustained but was sustained but
sale of 33 decimals of land sold by Changri Kunwar to Bibi Mahatabo
vide sale deed dated 26.03.1953 (exhibit-8) and later gift of this
property included in deed dated 16.03.1962 to her daughter Ajiman
Bibi (exhibit-3/b ) of total of 8 plus 33 = 41 decimals which in turn
was sold to Moti Lal Keshri was held to be not valid to the extent it
related to 33 decimal of land.
( 2025:JHHC:33604 )
29. This court is of the considered view that the 1st appellate court
has rightly granted relief to the plaintiffs only in connection with 8
decimals of the suit land sold out by the recorded tenants jointly way
back in the year 1944 which was an identified property and restrained
the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 not to make construction over 8 decimals
of suit land and hand over possession thereof to the plaintiffs within 3
months. The cross-objection of the defendants was dismissed as they
were not able to prove their right, title and interest in connection with
any portion of the suit land. The defendants are not the appellants
before this court.
30. This court finds that the learned 1st appellate court has
considered all the materials on record including the aforesaid
judgments passed in the earlier suit and the appeal which is exhibit 9
and 9/a respectively and held that Manglu Kunwar had acted in
violation of the judgements and consequently held that the transfer of
property by Manglu Kunwar to her daughter Chengari Kunwar vide
exhibit-B was illegal right from inception and also examined the
matter further to hold that exhibit-B could not be confined to ½ share
of husband of Manglu Kunwar.
31. This court is of the considered view that the learned 1 st
appellate court has properly scrutinized the materials on record and
passed an appropriate judgment and there is no illegality or perversity
in the impugned judgment calling for framing any question of law,
much less, any substantial question of law in this second appeal.
32. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated of Judgment: 11/11/2025
Uploaded on 11/11/2025
Binit
