IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 97 of 2004

1. Chandrika Singh, son of Late Chaman Singh, 2. Gauri Devi, wife of Sri Chandrika Singh, Both resident of village- Karaundi, Police Station - Gumla, district-

Gumla … … Defendant nos. 2 and 5/Respondent Nos. 2 and

5/Appellants Versus

1. Sudhakar Kumhar

2. Lagni Devi, son and widow of Late Rameshwar Kumhar, son of Late Dablu Kumhar, resident of village- Karaundi, P.O., Karaundi, Police Station – Gumla, district- Gumla.

… Plaintiff/Appellant Nos. 1 and 2/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2

3. Gayatri Kumari, daughter of Muneshwar Kumhar, 4. Lalkeshwar Kumhar, 5. Bishwanath Kumhar, both Nos. 4 and 5 sons of Late Ghuneshwar Kumhar, Nos. 2 to 4, all resident of village- Karaundi, Karaundi, P.O., Police Station – Gumla, district- Gumla.

6. Mangri Devi, wife of Dasrath Mahato, resident of village -Putrungi, Police Station- Dumri, P.O. Katkahi, district- Gumla.

… … Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6/Respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6/Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 ---

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

For the Appellants : Mr. Sachi Nandan Das, Advocate : Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 1 and 2 : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate ---

14/12.08.2025 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2004 (decree signed on 28.02.2004) passed in Title Appeal No. 23 of 1995 by learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Gumla whereby the learned 1^st appellate court reversed the judgment and decree dated 22.02.1995 (decree signed on 06.03.1995) passed by learned Sub-Judge-III, Gumla in Title Suit No.

41 of 1990.

3. This appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated

18.05.2006 on the following substantial questions of law:

“(a) Whether the plaintiff has got any locus standi to file the suit?

(b) Whether the suit for declaration of the sale deed dated 29.06.1990 as illegal is maintainable in absence of prayer for partition of the joint estate of common ancestor Gokul Kumhar and recovery of possession from Chandrika Singh?”

4. While addressing the 1^st substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that the original plaintiff was the co-sharer of the suit property and the previous partition with respect to the joint family property was not proved and therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff did not have the locus to file the suit.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants does not dispute this fact that the original plaintiff was the co-sharer of the suit property as per the findings recorded by the learned courts and he has fairly submitted that under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the original plaintiff did not have the locus standi to file the suit as a portion of the entire property was sold by the defendant no. 1 – the co-sharer.

6. In view of the aforesaid submissions the original plaintiff claiming to be the co-sharer of the property had the locus standi to file the suit. The 1^st substantial question of law is accordingly answered.

7. With respect to the 2^nd substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the property admittedly belonged to the common ancestor namely, Gokul Kumhar and the subject matter of the suit was challenge to sale-deed dated 29.06.1990 executed by one of the co-sharers of the property. The learned counsel has also submitted that the appellant no. 1 herein is the purchaser of the property and the appellant no. 2 is the wife of appellant no. 1 and was defendant no. 5 in the suit and is also a co-owner of the suit property.

8. The learned counsel further submitted that the defendant no. 1 was also a co-owner of the suit property and in view of section 44 of Transfer of Property Act, the sale by the defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2 cannot be said to be void ab initio, rather the purchaser of the suit property has a right to seek partition and ge