Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 755
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
M/s Hi-Tech Heritage Ltd. and Others - Appellants
Versus
Krishna Singh and Others - Respondents
F. A. No. 77 of 2023, F. A. No. 44 of 2023, F. A. No. 156 of 2023
Decided on : 04-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Akhilesh Srivastava, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Sumeet Anand, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Sumit Anand, Advocate, Mr. Akhilesh Srivastava, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate
The court examined the legitimacy and validity of property transfer documents, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation and relationships in establishing rightful ownership.
Headnote:(A) Property Law - Issues related to transfer of property and validity of documents executed - The appellants claim ownership through a chain of transfer, while the respondents contest the validity of the power of attorney and related documents leading to the transfer of property from deceased owners. (Paras 4, 5, 8, 9, 11)
(B) Ownership Rights - Issues arose regarding who held the rightful claim to the property and the legitimacy of various transfer documents including power of attorney and Punchanama executed prior to the contested transfers.
(C) Challenge to Deeds - Respondents argue that transfers made by individuals not related to the original owner are void, whereas the appellants present a continuity of ownership through documented transactions. (Paras 9, 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The case involves competing claims over a property that was owned by two deceased individuals, with complex family relationships and multiple documents purportedly affecting ownership. The conflicting claims arise primarily from a power of attorney and a Punchanama, with subsequent transfers made by different heirs.
Findings of Court:
The appellants assert majority ownership through documented transfers, while respondents contest both the validity of the power of attorney and the connection of the transferring parties to the original owners.
Issues: The court addressed whether the respondents' rights were infringed by the transfers claimed by the appellants and the validity of the documents supporting these claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for proper documentation in establishing claims to inherited property and the legality of power of attorney in relation to ancestral vs. self-acquired property.
Result: The court scheduled further hearings and requested written submissions from both parties.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. property ownership and transfer details (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments regarding validity of property transfers (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. procedural directions and next steps (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
[F.A No. 77 of 2023 and F.A. No. 44 of 2023]
1. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in all the cases, the plaintiffs are the same and the property involved in the case is also one and the same.
2. The last purchaser of the property in all the cases is the same.
3. He has submitted that there is a chain of transfer and the last purchaser is the second purchaser of the property.
4. He submits that the property stood recorded in the name of Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram and there was no partition between the two; the share of Jogeshwar Ram devolved upon his death on three brothers namely Balmiki Singh, Tarak Nath Singh and Baij Nath Singh and thus, half of the total property devolved upon the three brothers together and consequently each one of them got one-third in half of the property.
5. He further submits that Algu Ram expired leaving behind his one brother Radha Krishna Singh who had one son namely Rameshwar Singh and Rameshwar Singh transferred the entire share to the extent it related to Algu Ram to the appellants and further Baij Nath Singh son of Jogeshwar Ram transferred his portion of the property to the appellants. Consequently, the appellants got half share of the total property which was belonging to Algu Ram plus one-third share of the remaining half which was originally belonging to Jogeshwar Ram and consequently, the 5/6th of the property was purchased by the last purchaser.
6. He has further submitted that Algu Ram had expired on 20.01.1996 and his wife Dukhani Devi had expired on 27.07.2001 and there was an unregistered purported Punchanama dated 24.12.1990 executed by Algu Ram in favour of Jogeshwar Ram and one purported power of attorney was also executed by Jogeshwar Ram on 08.11.2000 which was included the entire property of Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram. Jogeshwar Ram expired on 16.11.2000 and his wife had expired sometimes in the month of August, 2000.
7. The learned counsel has submitted that the alleged Punchanama dated 24.12.1990 was exhibited as Exhibit 5 in Title Suit No. 46 of 2012 which is subject matter of consideration in First Appeal No. 77 of 2023. He has also submitted that so far as the power of attorney dated 08.11.2000 is concerned, the same was exhibited as Exhibit 3 in the said proceedings. He has submitted that these exhibits are available in other records also.
8. The learned counsel has also submitted that the plaintiffs are claiming by virtue of being power of attorney holder in terms of the document dated 08.11.2000 (Exhibit-3) and claimed the entire property and since the power of attorney was executed by Jogeshwar Ram in relation to the entire property, they excluded their own father and also his three brothers Tarak Nath Singh, Balmiki Singh and Baij Nath Singh. Consequently, there is a conflict between power of attorney holders by virtue of alleged Exhibit-3 and the three brothers of Jogeshwar Ram namely Tarak Nath Singh, Balmiki Singh and Baij Nath Singh. He has also submitted that the plaintiffs in their relief did not challenge the initial sale deed and they only challenged the last sale deed and consequently, the sale deeds in favour of the vendors of the last purchaser through a chain of transfer remained intact.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs (Respondents in First Appeal No. 77 of 2023 and First Appeal 44 of 2023) has submitted that the first transfer was made by Rameshwar Singh who is son of Radha Krishna Singh but he was not at all related with Jogeshwar Ram never devolved upon Radha Krishna Singh and then to Rameshwar Singh and therefore, the transfer has been made by persons completely stranger to Jogeshwar Ram and this finding has been recorded by both the courts.
10. He has submitted that th
