Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1569
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
M/s Hi-Tech Heritage Ltd., - Appellant
Versus
Krishna Singh – Respondent
F.A. No. 77 of 2023
Decided on : 26-09-2025
For the Appellants :Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Md. Imran Hasan, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. T.N. Ojha, Advocate
A party not bound by a prior deed can declare it void without seeking its cancellation if the party proves the other party had no right over the property.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 31 and 34 - Title Suit - Sale Deed No.1421 dated 03.03.2011 was held null and void, as the defendant had no right to execute it due to being determined not related to the original owner of the property, who died issueless - Unregistered documents are not admissible for conferring title - The existence of the previous sale deed (No.5890) was not sufficient to maintain the suit; plaintiffs need to establish better title. (Paras 1, 4, 28, 33, 120)
(B) Legal Relationship - The trial court found that Rameshwar Singh, defendant, was not the nephew of Algu Ram; thus, he could not execute any power or deed to transfer property rights - Clear evidence indicated that both Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram were in joint possession throughout their lives with mutual rights to the property. (Paras 8, 12, 144)
(C) Burden of Proof - As per Indian Evidence Act, the burden to prove the relationship fell on the defendants; the court reiterated the principle that documents procuring title must be duly registered and valid. (Paras 92, 144)
(D) Appeal - The appeal was dismissed as the defendants failed to establish a valid title or right over the disputed property, affirming lower court's findings. (Paras 146, 150)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties to the suit and properties in dispute (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments against maintainability and right to sue (Para 8 , 12 , 15 , 20) |
| 3. court’s assessment on the maintainability of the suit (Para 11 , 21 , 71 , 102) |
| 4. determination of rights arising from the transactions (Para 19 , 28 , 39 , 48 , 115) |
| 5. final order dismissing the appeal (Para 146 , 148) |
JUDGMENT :
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
1. This first appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.11.2022 (Decree sealed and signed on 14.12.2022) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sub- Divisional Court, Chandil in Original Suit No.46 of 2012 (Title Suit No.46 of 2012) whereby and whereunder the suit has been decreed on contest in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and Sale Deed No.1421 dated 03.03.2011 executed by the Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 has been declared as null and void and further, it has been held that Defendant No.1 has not acquired any interest over the suit land. Consequently, the defendants are the appellants before this Court.
2. The plaintiffs/respondents had filed Title Suit No.46 of 2012 for the following reliefs:
(i) That it be declared the deed of conveyance (Sale Deed) No.1421 dated 03.03.2011 executed by the Defendant No.2 in favour of the Defendant No.1 is forged, fabricated, without consideration and void ab initio and the Defendant No.1 has not acquired any interest in the suit premises,
(ii) Cost of the suit,
(iii) Any other relief or reliefs.
3. The suit land as mentioned in the Schedule of the plaint is all that piece and parcel of the land measuring area 105 decimals under Mouza- Dobo, Khata No.9, Plot No.1198 (Part), Thana No.331, Halka No.2 within P.S.- Chandil, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan under Registry Office- Seraikella, which is bounded as North: Plot No.1198, South: River & Plot No.1201 & 1202, East: Plot No.1203 and West: Plot No.1200, 1201 & 1188.
4. The suit was filed by three plaintiffs namely, Krishna Singh, Sudama Singh and Bhola Singh, all sons of Tarak Nath Singh and the Plaintiff No.1 claimed to be attorney holder of Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3.
5. The Defendant No.1 is Hi-Tech Heritage Ltd. and the original Defendant No.2 was Dilip Kumar Singh Deo. The Defendant No.3 is Rameshwar Singh S/o Radha Krishna Singh. The Defendant No.3 has claimed to be original owner of the suit property. Defendant No.4 is Vijay Kumar Sinha who is the Power Attorney holder of the Defendant No.3.
6. Case of the Plaintiffs
A. Jogeshwar Ram was own uncle of the plaintiffs and Algu Ram was the brother-in-law (Sarhu) of Jogeshwar Ram. Algu Ram, his wife, the plaintiffs and Jogeshwar Ram were residing together under the Managership (Karta) of Jogeshwar Ram. Jogeshwar Ram died issueless on 16.11.2000 and his wife died in August, 2000. Algu Ram died issueless on 20.01.1995 and his wife Dukhni Devi died on 27.07.2001.
B. The suit land alongwith other lands stands recorded jointly in the names of Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram in the Survey Khatian, 1964 and the suit land is their acquired property. Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram both had acquired, owned and possessed an area measuring 5 acres and 10 decimals.
C. Algu Ram had given his right, title, interest, possession, etc. over the suit land and other lands to Jogeshwar Ram by executing a ‘Panchnama’ and consequently, Jogeshwar Ram became the absolute owner of the entire 5 acres and 10 decimals of lands and accordingly mutated in the name of Jogeshwar who paid rent to the Government which continued to be paid till 2011.
D. Jogeshwar Ram executed a power of attorney on 08.11.2000 in favour of the Plaintiff No.1 Krishna Singh s/o Tarak Nath Singh authorizing him to manage the entire land including the suit land and to do all things. It has been asserted that since prior to 08.11.2000, the plaintiffs have been looking after the lands with their uncle Jogeshwar Ram and they came in absolute right, title, interest and possession over same continuously.
E.
