Jharkhand High Court
Manmohan Keheri Son Of Late Motilal ... vs Jitendra Kumar Sahu on 14 October, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
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
... ... Plaintiff/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. Uainath 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 10m 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
---
26/14.10.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.
2. 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 plaintiff is
in second appeal and has lost in both the courts.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 grand father
of the plaintiff. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 1 st
appellate Court's judgment.
10. 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 vide exhibit-9 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 by Exhibit-9. He submits that figures have been wrongly
mentioned in the judgment as out of 1.32 acres, 9 decimal was already
sold jointly by both the brothers and upon deducting 8 decimal what
would remained was 1.24 acres and 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Arguments of the appellants is concluded.
16. Order is reserved.
17. Post this case for 'Orders' on 03.11.2025.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
