IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 34 of 2023 Smt. Anita Mahato aged about 49 years, W/o Sri Birbal Mahato, R/o Vill.- Jojodih, Tudiyan, P.O.+P.S.-Kharswan, Dist.: Seraikella-

Kharswan, Jharkhand … … Defendant/Appellant/Appellant Versus Devan Mahato @ Devendra Nath Mahato, S/o Late Mokra Mahato, R/o Vill.- Chhota Gamharia, P.O.+P.S.-Gamharia, Dist: Seraikella-

Kharswan … … Plaintiff /Respondent/ Respondent With S.A. No. 49 of 2023 Smt. Anita Mahato, aged about- 49 years, W/o. Sri Birbal Mahato, R/o. Vill.- Jojodih, Tudiyan, P.O.+ P.S.-Kharswan, Dist.: Seraikella-

Kharswan, Jharkhand … … Defendant/Appellant/Appellant Versus Devan Mahato @ Devendra Nath Mahato, S/o. Late Mokra Mahato, R/o. Vill.- Chhota Gamharia, P.O.+P.S.-Gamharia, Dist: Seraikella-

Kharswan … … Plaintiff /Respondent/ Respondent ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY ---

For the Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Advocate : Mr. Yuvaj Singh, Advocate : Mr. Atif Anwar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Advocate : Mr. Madhav Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate ---

13/31.07.2025 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Both the appeals have been filed against the judgement dated 12.12.2022 (decree signed on 22.12.2022) passed by the learned District Judge-II, Seraikella-Kharswan in Title Appeal No. 07 of 2015 and in Title Appeal No. 13 of 2015, whereby the learned 1^st appellate court had allowed the Title Appeal No. 13 of 2015 and had dismissed the Title Appeal No. 7 of 2015. Both the appeals before the learned 1^st appellate court were arising out of the judgment dated 30.05.2015 (decree signed on 12.06.2015) passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division No. I, Seraikella-Kharswan in Title Suit No. 47 of 2008.

3. The Title Suit was decreed on contest and the impugned registered sale deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 has been declared as inoperative, void and illegal and not binding on the plaintiff and further a decree for confirmation of possession of the plaintiff over the suit premises has been passed. The learned Trial Court had also directed the plaintiff to refund an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the defendant as the sale deed was canceled.

4. The learned 1^st Appellate Court in Title Appeal no. 13 of 2015 (subject matter of S.A. No. 49 of 2023) has set aside the said relief of refund of Rs. 2,50,000/- in the appeal filed by the plaintiff by holding that no such relief was prayed for by the defendant in as much as no counter claim was filed by the defendant to that effect. The order of cancellation of sale deed, which was challenged by the defendant in another 1^st appeal being Title Appeal no. 07 of 2015 (subject matter of S.A. No. 34 of 2023) was upheld. Consequently, the cancellation of sale deed was upheld and the direction to refund was set aside and both the

1^st appeals were decided against the defendant.

5. Vide order dated 05.05.2025, S.A. No. 34 of 2023 was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

“I. whether both the learned courts below erred in travelling beyond the pleadings and giving a perverse finding regarding applicability of section 46 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act in the present case, as plaintiff nowhere pleaded that he belonged to backward class and further neither any issue was framed on this point nor any evidence was led by the plaintiff?

II. Whether both the learned courts below erred in not considering that when plaintiff himself admitted to have executed sale-deed no. 3641, dated 26.07.2006 whereby he purchased a plot of land from Trilok Mahto after paying Rs. 3,00,000/-, then Registered sale deed No. 3640, also dated 26.07.2006 executed by the plaintiff himself for a consideration amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- could not be said to have been executed by him under intoxication?”

6. Vide order dated 05.05.2025, S.A. No. 49 of 2023 was admitted on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the learned lower appellate court erred in discarding the judgment of the learned tr