Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1774
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Prakash Munjal - Appellant
Vs.
Lal Yashwardhan Nath Shahdeo @ Lal Karan Nath Shahdeo, S/o Late Dilip Nath Shahdeo - Respondent
C.M.P. No. 638 of 2025, C.M.P. No. 761 of 2025, C.M.P. No. 637, 639, 671 of 2025
Decided On : 21-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Amar Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. K.K. Ambastha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate, Mr. Pranay Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Anil Kr. Singh, Advocate
The court affirmed that intervenors could not be impleaded at a belated stage of trial without affecting their rights when not directly contested in the original suits.
Headnote:(A) Indian Registration Act, 1908 - Section 30 - Declaration of right, title, interest, and possession sought over property - Applications for impleadment by purchasers of land dismissed as they were neither necessary nor proper parties; their interests were not directly affected given the suits solely pertained to declarations against the original vendor’s title. (Paras 4-15)
(B) Impleadment - At the final argument stage, intervenors' belated applications for impleadment were rightly rejected, as this would necessitate a de novo trial and delay the proceedings. (Paras 13-15)
Facts of the case:
Civil miscellaneous petitions were filed by applicants claiming rights to land purchased from a vendor, whose title was challenged by the original plaintiff in multiple suits. The challenged sale deeds were not under dispute, and plaintiffs had not sought any relief against the intervenors.
Findings of Court:
The court held that any declaration about the property wouldn't be binding on intervenors due to their absence from the suits and concluded that their rights were unaffected.
Issues: The primary issues involved the necessity of the intervenors in the litigation and the timing of their applications for impleadment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the absence of a claim against intervenors negated their necessity, and the late-stage application for impleadment would cause procedural hindrance.
Result: Civil miscellaneous petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. All these batch of Civil Miscellaneous Petitions arise out of Original Suit Nos. 253/19, 260/19, 262/19, 263/19 and 264/19. In all these suits, common plaintiff is Lal Yashwardhan Nath Shahdeo @ Lal Karan Nath Shahdeo, Son of Late Dilip Nath Shahdeo minor through his next friend Sumit Singh Moyal for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit property and for declaring that sale deeds dated 14.09.2000 executed by defendant no. 3 in favour of defendant no. 4 was void ab initio and did not confer any right, title and interest to defendant no. 4.
2. In all the above suits there was no co-plaintiff with Lal Yashwardhan Nath Shahdeo @ Lal Karan Nath Shahdeo. Whereas, in Original Suit Nos. 253/19 the co-plaintiff of Lal Yashwardhan Nath Shahdeo @ Lal Karan Nath Shahdeo, is Smt. Rupa Shahdeo wife of Late Sri Dilip Nath Shahdeo.
3. All the Suits are with respect to Schedule-1 of the plaint measuring 31 acres and 52 decimals, appertaining to Plot Nos. 18, 19, 43, 44, and 45 of Khata No. 176 at Mouza Hehal, District Ranchi except in Original Suit No. 253 of 2019 which pertains to an area of 6 Katha 11 Chhatak in Plot No. 44/part Khata No. 176, Anchal Sukhdeonagar.
4. Petitioners are common intervener-applicants Prakash Munjal and Harish Munjal except in C.M.P. No. 761 of 2025 wherein intervener-applicant is Permil Danwara who appeared in Original Suit No. 253 of 2019 through his attorney Harish Munjal. Petitioners are aggrieved by rejection of their intervenor applications in each of the suits by separate order, but on the same ground. Being aggrieved by rejection of applications for impleadment, these civil miscellaneous petitions have been filed.
5. The present petitioners sought for impleadment in these suits, inter alia, on the ground that they had purchased 18357.58 square meter and 9178.79 square meter of land by two separate registered sale deeds executed on 18.11.1999 and 26.12.2001, by Lal Dilip Nath Shahdeo through his registered power of attorney holder Omprakash Taleja and Rohit Kumar Middha respectively. The land appertained to survey plot no.43 of Khata No.176 Hehal, Sukhdeonagar, Ranchi.
6. It is contended by the petitioners that they had antecedent right over the land as they had purchased the land from the father of the plaintiff Lal Yashwardhan Nath Shahdeo @ Lal Karan Nath Shahdeo, and husband of Smt. Rupa Shahdeo.
7. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that registered sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners has nowhere been challenged in these suits. However, the land purchased by them has been shown in the schedule of these suits and declaration of title with respect to it has been sought for. If the declaration was given with respect to the suit land their interest will be adversely affected.
8. Mr. Pranay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no. 1, has submitted that the claim of interveners-applicants hinges on the sale deed dated 18.11.1999 and 26.12.2001 and both of which were executed in Bombay and not in Ranchi. This was impermissible after the amendment in Section 30 of the Indian REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 which came into effect from 31.08.1991 (Bihar Amendment). This amendment fell for consideration in L.P.A. No. 620 of 2015 by the Division Bench of this Court, wherein it was held that any sale, which was not executed for the property within the State of Jharkhand, and other State, was illegal. It is further argued that these two sale deeds were not executed by Dilip Nath Shahdeo, rather by constituted attorney Rohit Kumar Mirdha and Om Prakash Taleja. None of the power of attorneys was registered. Even the power of attorney has been enclosed in the counter affidavits, wherein perusal of it discloses that the constituted power of attorney holders have not been given power to execute the sale deed, rather they have been given power only to present the sale deed executed by the vendor Dilip Nath Shahdeo.
9. It is further argued th
