Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal vs Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 341 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal vs Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal And Others on 20 January, 2026

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                   S.A. No. 173 of 2025

             Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, aged about 53 years, son of late Mohan
             Bhagat, resident of Village-Jamtara, P.O. and P.S. Dumri, District-
             Giridih, Jharkhand      ...     ...Defendant/Appellant/Appellant
                                     Versus
            Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal and others
                                       ... Plaintiff/Respondents/Respondents
                                     ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellants : Mr. Naimuddin Ansari, Advocate

---

07/20.01.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2025 (decree signed on 23.08.2025) passed by the learned Additional District Judge-VI, Giridih in Civil Appeal No. 47/2012 whereby the First Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2012(decree signed on 14.05.2012) passed by the learned Sub Judge-VI, Giridih in Title Suit No. 122 of 1990.

3. The learned counsel submits that the appellant was the contesting defendant in the suit and though he has lost in both the courts, but substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case.

4. The learned counsel submits that the sale was never complete in as much as the possession was not given to the plaintiff. The learned counsel has submitted that mother of the appellant Pramila Devi had purchased the properties through six sale deeds in the year 1979 and one of them was bearing no. 11691 for area 12 decimal which was the subject matter of the present suit. He has submitted that the deed was cancelled in the year 1981 on the ground of non-payment of the consideration amount and non-delivery of possession. He has also submitted that the original sale deed was produced by the defendant as Exhibit-1/A which itself reveal that the sale was not complete.

5. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 6 SCC 555 (Janak Dulari Devi and another versus Kapildeo Rai and another) and also the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in AIR 2012 Pat. 189 (Sri Ram Lal Mandal and Others versus Sri Satya Narayan Mandal and Others).

6. The learned counsel submits that the 'chirkut' was never handed over to the plaintiff and therefore the sale itself was not complete. However, during the course of argument it is not in dispute that the 'chirkut' was not produced by the contesting defendant before the learned court and the sale deed itself reveal that the entire consideration amount has been paid.

7. Arguments concluded.

8. Order is reserved.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit