Jharkhand High Court
Parwati Developers Through Its Partner vs Prem Minj And Ors on 8 October, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 62 of 2025
Parwati Developers through its partner, namely, Rajesh Bhalla
... ... Plaintiff/Appellant
Versus
Prem Minj and Ors. ... ... Defendants/Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate
: Ms. Swati Singh, Advocate
For Private Respondents : Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, Advocate
For the Resp. no. 5- State : Mr. Kanishka Deo, AC to GP-IV
---
11/08.10.2025 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the evidence
of the witnesses led on behalf of both the parties and has submitted
that there is consistent evidence on behalf of the plaintiff who led
three witnesses that the plaintiff has the title as well as possession with
respect to the suit property. In particular, so far as the possession is
concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the
evidence of P.W. 1 who is one of the partners in the plaintiff -
company and the learned counsel has referred to paragraphs 3, 6, 9,
12, 13, 16, 19 and 20 of his evidence. The learned counsel has
submitted that during cross-examination of P.W. 1, there has been
suggestion in connection with possession, but the witness has
sustained during cross-examination and has fully supported the case of
the plaintiff with respect to possession.
3. The learned counsel further submits that P.W. 2 and P.W. 3
both are neighbours to the suit property and they have also fully
supported the claim for possession of the plaintiff . The paragraphs of
the deposition of P.W. 2 which have been referred during the course
of hearing are paragraphs 4, 5, 7, 8, 23 and 24. With respect to
evidence of P.W. 3, the paragraphs referred are paragraphs 1, 2, 7, 10,
11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, 38 and 39.
4. The learned counsel has submitted that P.W. 3 is also a witness
to the sale-deed of the year 2016 which was executed in favour of the
plaintiff on the basis of which the plaintiff is claiming title and
possession with respect to the suit property.
5. The learned counsel has also submitted that it is not in dispute
that the property is a vacant land and the plaintiff is claiming title by
virtue of registered sale-deeds, the initial sale deed was executed way
back in the year 1921 by the recorded tenant whereas, the defendants
are claiming title by stating that they have purchased the property
through the descendants of the recorded tenant and the initial sale-
deed in favour of the defendants is of the year 1958.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to section 48 of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and has submitted that once the
property was already transferred by registered sale-deed way back in
the year 1921 by the recorded tenant, the descendants of the recorded
tenant had completely lost title over the property and therefore,
subsequent sale-deeds executed by the descendants of the recorded
tenant are of no consequence and do not confer any valid title in
favour of the defendants. He submits that since the vendor of the
defendants did not have the title, therefore, the defendants did not
acquire any title over the suit property.
7. While referring to the evidence of the defendants, the learned
counsel for the appellant has submitted that all the three defendants
have been examined as witnesses. D.W. 1 is defendant no. 3, D.W. 2
is defendant no. 1 and D.W. 3 is defendant no. 2.
8. With respect to evidence of D.W. 1, the learned counsel for the
appellant has referred to cross-examination of D.W. 1 (paragraphs 11,
13, 14 and 20) to submit that it stood admitted that the plaintiffs/their
predecessor-in-interest were in possession of the suit property. With
respect to evidence of D.W. 2, he has referred to paragraphs 13, 15,
19, 20, 21, 24 and 25 and has submitted that similar is the situation
with respect to the cross-examination of D.W. 2. With respect to
evidence of D.W. 3, the learned counsel has referred to paragraphs 15,
20, 25 and 26 of his evidence and submitted that the cross-
examination also reveals that it stood admitted that the plaintiffs/their
predecessor-in-interest are in possession of the suit property.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is
enough evidence on record to hold that the plaintiffs have title as well
as possession with respect to the suit property. He submits that the
while considering the point of possession, though the evidences have
been mentioned by the learned trial court in the body of the judgment,
but there is no discussion of the oral evidences in the findings
recorded by the learned trial court while holding that the plaintiff is
not in possession of the suit property and otherwise also, there is no
discussion or finding as to why the oral evidences led by the plaintiff
and the defendants were to be disbelieved.
10. Post this case tomorrow i.e., on 09th October 2025 for further
hearing .
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
