2026 Supreme(Jhk) 241

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Mahabir Tiwary, son of Late Shivdut Tiwary – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand, through the Deputy Commissioner – Respondent
F.A. No. 138 of 2023
Decided On : 13-02-2026

Agreement to sell joint leasehold share, contingent on non-party co-lessee's renewal involvement and discretionary transfer permission, is void for uncertainty; plaintiff must prove continuous readiness/willingness with funds and steps undertaken.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 13(1)(b), 16(c), 22 - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 29 - Agreement to sell undivided half share in joint government leasehold properties (building and orchard) executed after lease expiry, contingent on renewal (requiring non-party co-lessee participation) and prior transfer permission - Renewal incomplete (salami paid by co-lessee but registered deed pending; other lease application pending) - No application for transfer permission filed - Agreement uncertain and incapable of being made certain, hence void - Plaintiff undertook to pursue renewal/registration and obtain permission but failed to plead/prove steps taken or fund availability therefor, besides inconsistent balance consideration claims and reliance on company funds (distinct entity) despite individual agreement - No continuous readiness/willingness from agreement date till suit - No bar to suit despite non-joinder of co-lessee for specific performance of undivided share, but impossible without renewal involving non-party - No alternate relief (refund) claimable absent specific prayer. (Paras 24(ii),(iii),(ii),(i),(iv); 63,71,74,88,92)

(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 44 - Co-owner may transfer undivided share subject to joint possession/partition rights, but decree limited to share transfer absent other co-owner; no possession/partition without joinder. (Para 19,84-86)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff sought specific performance of agreement for half share in joint leasehold lands, alleging payments made, readiness to pay balance, pursuit of renewal; vendor died, ex-parte against heirs; state defendants denied transfer right absent permission/renewal, disputed description/valuation. Trial court dismissed holding agreement void, no readiness/willingness. Appeal contested renewal formality, Section 13 applicability, Section 44 sufficiency.

Findings of Court:
Agreement void under Section 29; plaintiff neither ready nor willing; non-joinder immaterial but renewal/transfer impossible absent non-party co-lessee; no alternate relief absent claim.

Issues: (i) Suit bad for non-joinder of co-lessee? (ii) Agreement void under Section 29? (iii) Plaintiff ready/willing? (iv) Entitled to relief?

Ratio Decidendi: Uncertain future events (non-party-dependent renewal/registered deeds, discretionary transfer permission) render agreement void; plaintiff must plead/prove continuous readiness/willingness including funds/steps for obligations (renewal expenses, permission pursuit); Section 13(1)(b) inapplicable absent 'bound to concur' state authorities/non-party; no automatic transfer right post-renewal.

Result: Appeal dismissed; suit dismissal upheld.

Table of Content
1. appeal from trial court dismissal of suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. specific performance sought for half-share leasehold sale. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. transfer requires prior government permission. (Para 7)
4. trial court: no readiness, agreement void. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. readiness proved; renewal not precedent to decree. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. agreement uncertain without permissions and renewals. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
7. key issues: non-joinder, validity, readiness, relief. (Para 24)
8. evidence shows payments, joint leases, pending renewals. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
9. plaintiff failed continuous readiness and willingness proof. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63)
10. agreement void for uncertainty under section 29. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74)
11. cited cases inapplicable to joint lease facts. (Para 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82)
12. co-lessee essential for renewal and relief. (Para 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88)
13. no alternate relief without specific claim. (Para 89 , 90 , 91 , 92)
14. appeal dismissed; trial judgment upheld. (Para 93 , 94 , 95)

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

1. This first appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.04.2023 (Decree sealed and signed on 09.05.2023) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-VI, Hazaribag in Original (Title) Suit No.154 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed on contest.

2. Inspite of substituted service of notice the respondent no. 3 and 4 have not appeared.

3. The records of the case reveal that in the original suit, there were only three defendants. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were Deputy Commissioner and Khas Mahal Officer respectively and Defendant No.3 was Ranjit Lahiri who was substituted before the trial Court on account of his death vide order dated 18.12.2021 and the proceeding was set ex-parte vide order dated 27.09.2022. The records further reveal that the original Defendant No.3 (Ranjit Lahiri) had appeared before the learned trial court and had filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure on 29.04.2019 making a prayer for rejection of the plaint, but the said petition was rejected by the learned court vide order dated 03.12.2019. Subsequently, the original Defendant No.3 was substituted and then the proceeding was set ex-parte against the substituted legal heirs and successors of original Defendant No.3.

4. The title suit was instituted on 11.09.2016 as per the records of the trial court. The suit was filed seeking specific performance of contract of sale dated 17.12.2014 said to have been executed between the plaintiff and the original Defendant No.3. The plaintiff had prayed for the following reliefs:

“a) That the plaintiff accordingly prays to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for specific performance of contract to sale dated 17.12.2014 and for execution of Sale-deed and delivery of peaceful physical actual possession of the land in question to the extent of half share of the Defendant No.- 3 which is mentioned in schedule 'A' and 'B' of the plaint to the plaintiff against payment of balance Sale consideration.

b) By pronouncement of judgment and decree to effect that any impugned sale by Defendant No.- 3 in favour of Baleshwar Prasad Mehta or any prospective purchaser as void and not binding upon the plaintiff and calling the original Sale-deed adjudging the same as void against the plaintiff and otherwise cancelling the same.

c) That a permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against Defendant No.3 restraining him and his brother Dr. Avijit Lahiri and also the Defendant No.2 from transferring conveying, alienating or assigning any part of the land of the schedule 'B' land or from entering into any agreement or any of the aforesaid p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document