Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 2233
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J
Sulu Mahato, Funu Mahato – Appellant
Versus
Mansa Ram Mahato, Deepak Mahato, Dilip Kumar Mahato, Rajesh Kumbhakar, Om Prakash Kedia, Mahesweta Kedia, Abhiram Mahato, Devendra Nath Mahato, Sasadhar Mahato – Respondent
C.M.P. No. 403 of 2024
For the Petitioners: Mr. Akash Deep
For the O.P. No.5: Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Mr. Akshay Kumar
For the O.P. Nos.6&7: Mr. Vineet Sinha, Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush
The court dismissed the petition as the claim against the validity of sale deeds was barred by limitation, emphasizing the timing of execution and recognition of caste status.
Headnote:(A) CNT Act - Section 46 - The petitioners filed Original Suit to declare certain sale deeds as fraudulent based on the contention that it contravenes with provisions of the CNT Act. The trial and appellate courts rejected their petition for temporary injunction. (Paras 3, 4, 6)
(B) Limitation Period - The opposition argued the suit was barred by limitation due to the extended time since execution of sale deeds, as per established case law which dictated limitation begins with execution date. (Paras 5, 6)
(C) Findings of Court - The dismissal of the petition was based on the assessment that no merit existed for the petitioners' claims against the sale deeds executed by the backward caste/vendor prior to official recognition as such. (Paragraph 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners claim the sale deeds executed by their agnate vendor were fraudulent and invalid under the CNT Act due to caste-based restrictions.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the claims for temporary injunction leading to dismissal of the CM petition.
Issues: The petition's merit regarding contractual validity of sale deeds given caste restrictions and alleged contraventions of the CNT Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted limitations on contesting sale deeds and ruled based on the timing and nature of caste classification at the sale's execution.
Result: The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
9. Sasadhar Mahato, son of Khokha Mahato, resident of Village Charak Pathar, P.S. Kamalpur, (Patamda), P.O. Patamda, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. Akash Deep, Advocate For the O.P. No.5 : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate Mr. Akshay Kumar, Advocate For the O.P. Nos.6&7: Mr. Vineet Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate Order No.10 / Dated : 14.08.2025 Plaintiffs are before this Court against the orders of the trial Court and the appellate Court by which the petition for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2, have been rejected.
2. Petitioners/plaintiffs filed the Original Suit No.170/2021 to declare the Sale Deed No.7112/6290 dated 11.11.2005 executed by opposite party no.1/defendant no.1- Mansa Ram Mahato in favour of opposite party nos.7, 8 & 9 and Sale Deed No.10178/8109 dated 30.12.2011 executed by opposite party no.2/defendant no.2- Deepak Mahato in favour of opposite party no.4 and Sale Deed No.6792/5589 dated 26.07.2010 executed by opposite party no.3/defendant no.3 in favour of opposite party nos.5 & 6 to be fake, fraudulent and invalid documents.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that the vendor of these sale deeds were members of backward caste and transfer had been made in the name of person of general category and therefore, it was hit by Section 46 of the CNT Act . In this view of matter, the sale deeds were fit to be declared void as being in contravention with specific provision of the CNT Act . On this premise, temporary injunction petition was filed by the plaintiffs to restrain the defendants from doing any more construction on the suit property.
4. It is submitted that prima facie the case is in favour of plaintiffs, balance of convenience is also in their favour. If the nature of property is changed, petitioners/plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss. It is also submitted that the plaintiffs are agnates of vendor and the property is joint family property. Vendor has sold more than his share in the joint family property of which he had no title to transfer to the purchaser. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court and the first appellate Court have held that the suit for cancellation of the sale deed was barred by limitation. Reliance is placed on the order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1225 of 2019 and Shalkhan Murmoo Vs. State of Jharkhand &
Others, 2012 SCC OnLine Jhar 120
5. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of opposite party nos.6 and 7, who are purchasers of the suit property that present plaintiff/petitioner is none other than the mother of the vendor, who had sold the land in favour of opposite parties. Further, the plea for cancellation/declaration of the sale deed to be void, is not sustainable for the reason that at the time of sale, vendors did not come in the category of backward caste and by notification issued by the State of Government on
08.12.2011, they have been declared to be within the backward caste, whereas sale deeds were executed much prior to that.
6. Further, on the point of limitation reliance is placed on Rajpal Singh Vs. Saroj (deceased) through LRs. & Another‚(2022) 15 SCC 260 wherein it has been held that date of limitation starts running from the date of execution of the sale deed. The present suit for cancellation has been filed after about eleven years of the last sale deed executed in favour of the opposite parties. It is also submitted that authority relied upon is with regard to the provision under Section 71A of the CNT Act , wherein the Apex Court has held that the period for filing restoration application in case of transfer in contravention of this provision has been held to be 30 years. It is also submitted that there is no pleading that the transfer was barred under the provisions of CNT Act .
7. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the opposite parties, I
