[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Jayanti Devi vs Anand Kishore Nand on 19 February, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 184 of 2020
1. Jayanti Devi, aged about 62 years, wife of Late Bhagwan Nand
2. Santosh Kumar Nand, aged about 33 years
3. Shiv Kumar Nand, aged about 30 years, both sons of Late Bhagwan
Nand, all are residents of Timra, P.O. & P.S. Karra, District Khunti
... ... Defendants/Appellants/Appellants
Versus
1. Anand Kishore Nand
2. Chitranjan Kumar Nand
Both sons of Late Jagarnath Nand, resident of village Timara, P.O. &
P.S. Karra, District Khunti
... ... Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents
3. Rajendra Prasad, S/o Bhagwan Prasad
4. Durga Prasad, S/o Jagarnath Prasad
5. Bishnu Lal, S/o Hiralal
6. Charka Mahto, S/o Matku Mahto,
Nos. 3 to 6 are R/o of village Timra, P.O. & P.S. Karra, District Khunti
... ... Defendants/Respondents/Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents :
---
th
10/19 February 2026
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.09.2019
(decree signed on 06.11.2019) passed by the learned District and
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in Civil Appeal (Title Appeal) No. 53
of 2010, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment dated
27.03.2010 (decree signed on 08.04.2010) passed by the learned Civil
Judge, Junior Division (Munsif), Khunti in Title Suit No. 08/2009 has
been confirmed. The suit was decreed partly in favor of the plaintiffs.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the findings
recorded by the learned trial court in paragraph 25 and has submitted that
the learned trial court has recorded a specific finding in favor of the
defendants that the challenge to the sale deed dated 03.08.2005 was barred
by limitation. The point of limitation was partly decided against the
plaintiffs and partly in favor of the plaintiffs as other reliefs were also
involved in the case.
4. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [Rajpal Singh vs. Saroj (deceased)
through Legal Representatives] reported in (2022) 15 SCC 260 and has
submitted that in a suit seeking cancellation of sale deed and recovery of
possession, it is governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act and not by
Article 65. He has submitted that the learned 1 st appellate court has not
recorded any finding on the point of limitation.
5. The fact remains that the learned trial court had decided the issue of
limitation, so far as challenge to the registered sale deed of the defendants
is concerned, and the said finding is in favor of the defendants. At this the
learned counsel for the appellant submits that in spite of the suit being
barred by limitation, the 1st appellate court has confirmed the judgment of
the learned trial court and the appellate court ought to have dismissed the
suit itself.
6. Arguments of the appellants on the point of determination of the
substantial question of law is concluded.
7. Order is reserved.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 19.02.2026
Mukul/-
