Jharkhand High Court
Suman Devi Kedia And Ors vs Smt. Urmila Devi And Anr on 9 October, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 426 of 2019
Suman Devi Kedia and Ors. ... ... Appellants
Versus
Smt. Urmila Devi and Anr. ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate
: Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
: Md. Abdul Wahab, Advocate
For the Respondents :
---
13/09.10.2025 The learned counsel for the appellants has argued at length and
submitted that the plaintiff has lost in both the courts but still a
substantial question of law arises in this case. He has submitted that
defendant no. 1 was claiming title over the property by virtue of a
registered sale deed dated 08.12.1970, and it is admitted that at the
time of registration of the sale deed, only part payment was made. The
vendor of defendant no. 1 did not hand over the chirkut to defendant
no. 1, as part of the consideration amount was still payable, and
ultimately defendant no. 1 could never obtain the original sale deed.
He submits that the original sale deed was produced by the plaintiff
before the court. The plaintiff purchased the property from the same
vendor vide registered sale deed dated 27.02.1974.
2. The learned counsel has further submitted that the defendants
claimed that the remaining consideration amount was paid and a
money receipt of 1971 was also issued by the vendor of defendant
no.1, but the original chirkut or the original sale deed was never
handed over to defendant no.1. The learned counsel has submitted that
defendant no.1 did not take any steps for recovery of the original sale
deed. He also submits that the title did not pass to defendant no.1 on
account of non-payment of the full consideration amount. He submits
that only Rs.500/- out of Rs.2000/- was paid at the time of registration
of the sale deed.
3. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 6 SCC 555 (Janak Dulari
Devi and Anr. Vs. Kapildeo Rai and Anr.) and submitted that the title
does not pass unless the original sale deed or the chirkut is delivered
to the buyer. This was peculiar in connection with the State of Bihar
and Jharkhand being a part of State of Bihar, same practice prevails
which has been judicially recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
He submits that the findings recorded in paragraph 18 of the learned
1st appellate court judgment is contrary to the judgment passed in the
case reported in (2011) 6 SCC 555 (supra).
4. In view of the aforesaid submission, this second appeal is
admitted for final hearing on the following substantial question of law:
Whether the finding of the learned first appellate court in
paragraph 18 is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in (2011) 6 SCC 555?
5. Issue notice to the respondents for which requisites under speed
post be filed within a period of one week.
6. Let the records be called for from the court concerned through a
special messenger, the cost for the same be deposited by the appellants
within a period of one week from today.
7. Office is directed to track the speed post delivery.
8. Post this case on 11.11.2025 for "Final Disposal".
9. Let a soft copy of this order be communicated to the court
concerned through FAX/email.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
09.10.2025.
Saurav/
