IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 37 of 2021

1. Bhagwati Devi, aged about 56 years, wife of Guni Rawani 2. Manik Rawani, aged about 45 years, Son of Guni Rawani … … Defendants/Appellants/Appellants

3. Anjali Devi, W/o late Ratan Rawani (aged about 34 years)

4. Anup Kumar, S/o late Ratan Rawani, aged about 14 years, represented through his mother as guardian, S/o Anjali Devi

5. Anokhi Kumari, D/o late Ratan Rawani, aged about 12 years, represented through her mother as guardian, D/o- Anjali Devi

6. Aradhya Kumari, D/o late Ratan Rawani, aged about 8 years, represented through her mother as guardian Anjali Devi All are R/o village Chandwari, at present Patharchapti Naya Bazar, Madhupur, P.O.+P.S. & Sub-division Madhupur, District Deoghar … … Substituted Appellants/Appellants Versus

1. Jinni Devi, wife of Sri Chhedi Rawani

2. Binod Rawani, S/o late Chiman Rawani … … Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents

3. Soni Devi, W/o late Ganesh Rawani

4. Pintu Kumar @ Piyush Kumar, S/o late Ganesh Rawani, minor, represented through his mother as guardian, S/o- Soni Devi

5. Riya Kumari, D/o late Ganesh Rawani, minor, represented through her mother as guardian, D/o Soni Devi … … Substituted Respondents/Respondents

6. Ramesh Rawani, S/o late Ram Rawani 7. Krishna Rawani, S/o late Ram Rawani

8. Lalita Devi, W/o late Ram Rawani All are R/o Mohalla Patharchapti, P.O.+P.S. & Sub- division Madhupur, District Deoghar … … Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents ---

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

For the Appellants : Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Manjeet Kr. Chaudhary, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Kumar Das, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate ---

CAV on 03.03.2025 Pronounced on17/06/2025 1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.01.2021 (decree signed on 15.02.2021) passed by the learned District Judge-VII, Deoghar in Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2019, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment dated 29.03.2019 (decree signed on 10.04.2019) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) -I, Deoghar in Title (D) Suit No. 16 of 2004 has been affirmed.

2. On perusal of order dated 03.03.2025 when the hearing of the case commenced, it is apparent that both the parties had agreed that this appeal be heard and decided only on the substantial questions of law framed vide order dated 27.02.2025 and consequently, the arguments were advanced only in connection with the substantial question of law nos. 4(i) and 4(ii)

as framed vide order dated 27.02.2025.

3. The aforesaid two substantial questions of law framed vide order dated 27.02.2025 are as under:

(i) Whether the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has misinterpreted the document of title i.e. Ext. B Sale deed dated 15.02.1994 no. 3034, which is a registered document and has a presumption that it is validly executed document, and as such the onus is on the person who alleges the contrary?

(ii) Whether the entire plaint itself is hit by the provision of order VII rule 3 of the C.P.C. as the particulars of the schedule-B does not correspondents to the sale deed dated 15/12/1994 no. 3034 i.e. Ext. B executed in favour of the appellants?

4. The perusal of the records of this case reveals that exhibit-B is registered deed no. 3043 dated 15.12.1992 which is subject matter of challenge in the suit and the parties have also advanced their arguments with respect to exhibit-B and apparently in the order dated 27.02.2025 the deed number and date has been inadvertently typed as “Sale deed dated 15.02.1994 no. 3034” in substantial question of law no. (i) and “sale deed dated 15/12/1994 no. 3034” in substantial question of law no. (ii), but exhibit number has been rightly mentioned. Accordingly, the two substantial questions of law framed for consideration are as under: (i) Whether the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has misinterpreted the document of title i.e. E