Jharkhand High Court
Bhagwati Devi vs Jinni Devi on 17 June, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2025:JHHC:15803
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
—
1
2025:JHHC:15803
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
2
2025:JHHC:15803
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. Ext. B Sale deed dated 15.12.1992 no. 3043,
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 15.12.1992 no. 3043 i.e. Ext. B
executed in favour of the appellants?
5. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for the following reliefs: –
i) For that on adjudication of the suit Title of the
plaintiff may be confirmed over schedule ‘B’ property.
ii) For that a sale deed dated 15.12.1992 vide no.
3043 executed by Jinni Devi and others in favour of
Bhagwati Devi be declared void and cancelled.
iii) For that possession be delivered to the plaintiffs
through the process of the court.
iv) For that a temporary injunction, be granted
against the defendants restraining them not to make
any type of construction over Schedule ‘B’ property.
v) Cost of the suit.
vi) Any other relief or reliefs as the court may deem
fit and proper.
6. Case of the Plaintiffs
(a) The specific case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs are
the heirs of Chiman Rawani. Originally, said Chiman Rawani had
taken settlement of 4 Kathas of Basouri land bearing plot no. 1455
under Thoka no. 59/18(old) 198/A(new) of Mouza Patharchapti of
Madhupur town from the then Ghatwalin of Pathrol Estate and after
3
2025:JHHC:15803
taking settlement of 4 Kathas of Basouri land, Chiman Rawani had
constructed building and was residing in the said premises with his
family members. Thereafter, Chiman Rawani during his life time
had sold 1 Katha 5 dhurs out of 4 katha to one Jamuna Debi by a
registered deed of sale and thus only 2 Kathas 15 dhurs were left
with Chiman Rawani.
(b) Chiman Rawani died leaving behind his widow Jinni Devi
and three sons, namely, Ram Rawani, Binod Rawani and Ganesh
Rawani and accordingly they inherited entire 2 Kathas 15 dhurs
together with building etc. Subsequently, Jinni Devi remarried with
her Devar, that is, Husband’s brother Chhedi Rawani and she
alongwith her children and 2nd husband Chhedi Rawani was
residing in Schedule-A property. Except the residential building,
Chiman Rawani had further constructed four rooms without roof. In
some portion of the rooms, roof was made of Asbestos and in some
portion of the rooms they were residing by putting plastic over the
roof. Thereafter, unfortunately Chiman Rawani died and due to lack
of money they failed to complete the R.C.C. slab over the four
rooms.
(c) On 04.02.2003, when the plaintiff no.1 namely, Jinni Devi
and other male members were not present in Schedule-A property,
the defendants, taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs,
alongwith some anti-social elements started assaulting other family
members of the plaintiffs and they illegally trespassed in a portion
of the building of the plaintiffs for which the plaintiff no.1 had filed
a P.C.R. (Protection of Civil Rights) case before Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur vide Case No. 90/2003. Except the
P.C.R. case, one proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. was
initiated by the plaintiff no.1 and after hearing, learned S.D.M,
Madhupur wrongly and illegally vacated the rules against the
defendants.
4
2025:JHHC:15803
(d) It is their further case that during spot enquiry done by the
Madhupur Police when the defendants showed a Xerox copy of sale
deed dated 15.12.1992 in the proceeding under Section 144 of
Cr.P.C., for the first time the execution of said sale-deed dated
15.12.1992 came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and they
immediately searched the Deoghar Registry Office regarding the
existence of the said document in the last week of February, 2003.
After searching, the plaintiffs found that actually the defendants had
managed to obtain a fake and forged sale deed. It is alleged by the
plaintiffs that the entire recital of the sale deed was false, bogus and
concocted and thus the sale deed dated 15.12.1992 was alleged to
be invalid document and the plaintiffs claimed that the same is
liable to be cancelled.
(e) The plaintiffs specifically stated that the plaintiff no.1 and
others had neither executed any sale deed in favour of Bhagwati
Devi nor the plaintiffs had ever received any consideration amount
from Bhagwati Devi, thus the sale deed dated 15.12.1992 executed
by Jinni Devi and others in favour of Bhagwati Devi is absolutely a
false and forged document.
(f) It is also alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendants have
never come in possession even in a single inch of land prior to
04.02.2003 and on 04.02.2003 they had illegally and unauthorizedly
trespassed in a portion of Schedule-A property which is specifically
mentioned in Schedule-B of the plaint. It was stated that the
defendants illegally came in possession in Schedule-B property of
the plaint and thereafter they begun to cast R.C.C. slab in the roof
after removing plastic and due to that, proceeding under Section
144 of Cr.P.C. was initiated and learned S.D.M., Madhupur had
illegally vacated the rules against the second party. Consequently,
the present suit has been filed.
(g) The plaintiffs had filed a separate petition under Order
XXXIX, Rule-1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code (in short ‘CPC‘)
5
2025:JHHC:15803
for restraining the defendants from making any type of
construction. The cause of action for filing the suit arose for the first
time on 04.02.2003 when the defendants illegally trespassed in the
Schedule-B property and also on last week of February, 2003 when
the plaintiffs came to know regarding existence of a fake and forged
sale deed dated 15.12.1992 executed by Jinni Devi and others in
favour of Bhagwati Devi.
7. Case of the Defendants.
(i) The defendant nos. 1 to 3 namely, Bhagwati Devi, Manik
Rawani and Ratan Rawani appeared and filed their written
statement before the learned trial court stating therein that para-1 of
the plaint contained the genealogical description of the descendants
of late Cheman Rawani, who was the former husband of the
plaintiff no.1 who died leaving behind his three sons, namely, Ram
Rawani @ Ramu Rawani, Binod Rawani and Ganesh Rawani who
were minor at the time of death of Chiman Rawani and the plaintiff
no.1 got herself remarried with Chhedi Rawani who is none but
brother of late Chiman Rawani. The description of the land which
late Chiman Rawani got settled during his life time was admitted by
the defendants but the full description of the land which was settled
in favour of late Chiman Rawani was given as under:
4 Kathas of Basouri land bearing survey plot no. 1455 and
Town plot no. 1075, under Thoka (Jamabandi) no. 198 within
Ward no. 15, under Halka of Madhupur Municipality.
(ii) The defendants further admitted that the deceased Chiman
Rawani during his life time had sold 1 katha 5 dhurs of land out of
4 kathas to one Jamuna Devi by registered deed of sale and the said
Jamuna Devi is still in possession of the same. The defendants also
admitted that after the death of Chiman Rawani his wife Jinni Devi
and three sons inherited the 2 Kathas and 15 dhurs of the land out of
4 kathas of land, but the three sons were minor at the time of death
of their father.
6
2025:JHHC:15803
(iii) The defendants further asserted that out of the Schedule-A
property containing 2 kathas and 15 dhurs, plaintiff no.1 who is the
wife of late Chiman Rawani transferred 1 katha 6 dhurs of land in
favour of Bhagwati Devi by way of registered sale deed no. 3043 of
the year 1992 and her minor sons had also consented and their
names are mentioned in the aforesaid sale deed executed on
15.12.1992 before the Sub-Registrar, Deoghar. Jinni Devi being the
legal guardian and head of the family executed the aforesaid sale
deed and Bhagwati Devi paid the consideration amount to Jinni
Devi in execution of the transfer of the land.
(iv) It is the specific case of the defendants that statement
regarding residing of plaintiffs in Schedule-A property is false
because after execution of sale deed no. 3043 of the year 1992 the
plaintiffs have with them only 1 katha 7 dhurs of land and plaintiffs
are residing over that very land. It has been asserted by the
defendants that the contention made in para-7 of the plaint are not
true rather misrepresentation and concealment of the fact because
Chiman Rawani never made any construction over the land in
question rather the defendant no.1 alongwith other defendants were
coming in legal and actual physical possession of the land in
question mentioned in Schedule-B of the plaint. It is contended by
the defendants that the statement made in para-8 of the plaint was
totally false and bogus as well as concealment of fact because the
defendant no.1 had made construction over the Schedule-B of the
plaint and due to lack of money, the defendant no.1 could not make
concrete roof over some portion of the house. It was stated by the
defendants that a false and fabricated P.C.R case was brought by the
plaintiff no.1 only with an oblique motive of putting pressure upon
the defendant no.1 and other defendants to give up their right, title
and possession over the land in question mentioned in Schedule-B
of the plaint which the plaintiff no.1 herself had transferred by
virtue of sale deed mentioned in preceding para of their written
7
2025:JHHC:15803
statement and the plaintiffs were again claiming over the same land
which they had transferred by the legal indenture before the rightful
authority which is definitely not permissible under the law.
(v) The proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C was initiated
against both the parties from the court of learned Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Madhupur on the basis of false complaint made by the
plaintiff no.1 and thereupon enquiry/local inspection was done by
the police and report was submitted to the court of learned S.D.M.,
Madhupur. Thereafter spot enquiry was also ordered to be done by
Court Amin and hence the court Amin went to the land in question
and submitted the report dated 17.04.2003. In both the reports i.e. in
Police report and Court Amin report, the defendants were found in
actual and legal possession of the land in question mentioned in
Schedule-B of the plaint and therefore, the defendants denied the
allegation made in paragraph 9 of the plaint. Being satisfied with
the report and on hearing both the parties, the learned S.D.M.,
Madhupur passed the order in favour of the defendants and thereby
vacated the order of Section 144 Cr.P.C against the defendants
whereas the order passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C was made
absolute against the plaintiffs vide order dated 25.04.2003.
(vi) It was also alleged by the defendants in their written
statement that the plaintiffs tried to conceal the fact which they
were knowing since 1992 i.e., from the date of execution of sale
deed dated 15.12.1992 in favour of defendant no.1 and intentionally
with oblique motive as well as to cause wrongful loss to the
defendants and for their wrongful gain , the plaintiffs suppressed the
real fact and therefore the suit was definitely barred by limitation as
envisaged under Indian Limitation Act and liable to be dismissed.
(vii) The allegation made in the plaint that the sale deed no. 3043
dated 15.12.1992 is forged one, was denied by the defendants and it
was asserted that the aforesaid sale deed is true and perfect and the
plaintiff no.1 executed it by taking the full consideration amount of
8
2025:JHHC:15803
Rs. 1,000/- and put her Left Thumb Impression before the Sub-
Registrar, Deoghar in presence of other minor sons and since then
the defendants were in actual, legal and physical possession over
the land in question by making rooms over the said plot which can
also be ascertained by the report of police and Court Amin
submitted in Criminal Misc. Case No. 82/03 in the court of learned
S.D.M., Madhupur. The defendants further stated that they had been
in rightful, legal and physical possession of the property in question
from the delivery of possession and execution of sale deed by the
plaintiff no.1 in favour of defendant no.1. The defendants denied
the allegations of the plaintiffs in relation to possession of the
property in question.
(viii) So far as passing of the order by the learned S.D.M under
Section 144 of the Cr.P.C is concerned, it was the case of the
defendants that the said order has reasonably been passed by
considering the reports of police, court Amin and other papers
produced by both the parties and by hearing both the parties.
Therefore, no cause of action arose to file the suit for declaration of
title. Further, no cause of action arose to file the suit because the
plaintiff no.1 alongwith other plaintiffs themselves executed sale
deed in favour of defendant no.1 in the year 1992 and delivery of
possession was given thereafter. It was asserted that of late the said
property in question was mutated in the name of defendant no.1
vide Mutation Case no. 20/03-04, in Register-II of the Circle of
Madhupur and the defendant No.1 had been depositing the rent of
property in question.
(ix) The defendants accordingly contended that the reliefs
sought by the plaintiffs are not maintainable in the eyes of law
rather it was sought only for the purpose of harassing the
defendants for fulfilling plaintiffs’ oblique motive, therefore, the
plaintiffs are not entitled to seek any relief/reliefs.
9
2025:JHHC:15803
8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court
framed following issues for consideration :-
“(1) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable?
(2) Whether the plaintiffs have got valid cause of action for the
present suit?
(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree for
cancellation of sale deed dated 15.12.92 vide no. 3043?
(4) Whether the defendant’s possession over the Schedule-B
property is wrongful possession?
(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree for delivery
of possession over the suit property through the process of law ?
(6)Whether the sale deed dated 15.12.1992 vide Deed no. 3043
executed by Jinni Devi and others in favour of Bhagwati
Devi is a valid document?
(7) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?”
9. Both oral and documentary evidences were produced by the parties.
10. The plaintiffs examined altogether seven witnesses, they are, P.W.-
1 Md. Faiyaz alias Md. Faryad, P.W.-2 Mahadeo Raut, P.W.-3 Nand
Kishore Rawani, P.W. -4 Baldeo Rai, P.W.-5 Bhairav Prasad, P.W.-6
Sohan Kr. Mandal and P.W.- 7 Jinni Devi (plaintiff no. 1).
11. The plaintiffs adduced following documents in support of their
case: –
Exhibit 1 Rent receipt No. 186
Exhibit 1/a Rent receipt No. 477
Exhibit 2 Hukumnama dated 08.03.1955
Exhibit 3 Certified Copy of order of S.D.O dated
25.04.2003
Exhibit 4 Certified copy of judgment in T.R. case
No. 252 of 2016
12. The defendants also examined altogether five witnesses, they are,
D.W.-1 Guni Rawani, D.W.-2 Ratan Kumar Rawani, D.W.-3 Bhagwati
Devi, D.W.-4 Punit Deo and D.W.-5 Manik Rawani.
13. The defendants adduced following documents in support of their
case: –
Exhibit A Certified copy of order of the S.D.O. dated
10
2025:JHHC:1580325.04.2010
Exhibit A/1 Certified copy of order dated 08.08.2003.
Exhibit B Certified copy of sale deed dated
15.12.1992
Exhibit C Original receipt of Nazarat dated
16.04.2003
Exhibit D Rent Receipt
Exhibit E Holding Tax Receipt dated 06.02.2018
Exhibit E/1 Holding Tax Receipt dated 23.02.2019
Exhibit F Original notice U/S 144 of the C.P.C. in
Criminal Misc. Case No. 82/03
Exhibit G Certified copy of judgment dated
21.01.2018 in Cr. Appeal No. 65 of 2016
14. The learned trial court has considered issue Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6
together and gave findings in paragraph 11 of its judgment which is
quoted as under: –
“11. Issue Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Since these issues are important issues, hence taken first.
Chiman Rawani during his life time he had sold one katha five
dhur out of four katha to one Jamuna Debi by a registered
deed of sale and thus only two kathas fifteen dhurs was left
with said Chiman Ramani. Accordingly Chiman Ramani died
leaving behind his widow Jinni Devi and three sons named as
Ram Rawani, Binod Rawani and Ganesh Rawani and
accordingly they had inherited entire two kathas fifteen dhurs
together with building etc. Detailed description of the two
kathas fifteen dhurs had together with building has been
mentioned in Schedule-A of this plaint. Subsequently, said
Jinni Devi has remarried with her Dewar i.e. husband’s
brother Chhedi Rawani and Jinni Devi alongwith her children
and second husband Chhedi Rawani are residing in Schedule-
A property. The plaintiffs have specifically stated that the
plaintiff No.1 and others have never executed any sale deed in
favour of Bhagwati Devi nor the plaintiff have ever received
any consideration amount from Bhagwati Devi thus the sale
deed dated 15.12.1992 vide No. 3043 executed by Jinni Devi
and others in favour of Bhagwati Devi is absolutely a false
11
2025:JHHC:15803and forged document. The defendants have never come in
possession even in a single inch of land prior to 04.02.2003
and on 04.02.2003 the defendants have illegally and
unauthorizedly trespassed in a portion of Schedule-A property
which is specifically mentioned in Schedule-B of the plaint.
Plaintiffs have examined some documents as Exhibits 1, 1/a,
rent receipts. Exhibit 2 Hukumnama, executed by Faldani
Kumari Ghatwalin in favour of Chiman Ram. Exhibit 3 is
certified copy of order of S.D.O., in Crl. Case. Exhibit 3/a is
certified copy of notice dated 08.08.2003, G.R. Case No.
60/2003. Defendants have produced some documents as
Exhibit-A is certified copy of order of S.D.O., dated
14.07.2010. Exhibit-A/1 is certified copy of order dated
14.01.2010. Exhibit-B is sale deed executed by Jinni Devi in
favour of Bhagwati Devi. Perused sale deed i.e. Exhibit B will
find name of Vendor Jinni Devi, Ramu Ramani, Binod Ramani
and Ganesh Ramani all are minor sons of Chiman Ramani. It
is very important to mention here that in all the page it has
been shown that L.T.I., of Jinni Devi identified by Ramu
Ramani and not only that Ramu Ramani is also one of the
witnesses. Now question arise whether a minor can identified
any person or can a minor put his signature as a witness of the
sale deed. As such minor cannot identified L.T.I. of any person
nor minor is competent to make any contract with any person
in such situation it is crystal clear that the L.T.I. of Jinni Devi
is absolutely a forge and Jinni Devi married with Chhedi
Ramani in such situation Jinni Devi is not a competent to act
of the guardian of the minor. Moreover, under Hindu Minor
and Guardianship Act no person can transfer the property of
minor without the permission of the court. The alleged sale
deed of the year 1992 is forged documents neither the plaintiff
No. 1 has executed the alleged sale deed nor she had any
authority to sell the property on behalf of her minor 3 sons as
because after marriage of Jinni Devi with Chhedi Ramani she
was not guardian of 3 minor sons. So, far limitation is
concerned, first time plaintiffs have come to their knowledge
in the year 2003 when the defendants have illegally trespassed
in the suit premises and thereafter the plaintiffs have filed this
suit in the year 2004, so suit is within time.
So in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and
also in view of the aforesaid discussion and on the basis of
oral and documentary evidences these issues are hereby
decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.”
12
2025:JHHC:15803
15. So far issue Nos. 1, 2 and 7 are concerned, the learned trial court
has given its findings in paragraph 12 as under: –
“12. Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 7
So far as these issues are concerned, having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard
to the evidences available on record and also after hearing
argument advanced on behalf of both parties and also in
view of my finding on issue Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 and also in
view of the specific evidences of PWs and Dws, it is to be
held that plaintiffs have got valid cause of action to bring
the suit against the defendants, as such the suit is
maintainable in its present form. So the plaintiffs are
entitled to the reliefs as claimed in the suit. As such these
issues are also hereby decided in favour of plaintiffs and
against the defendants.”
16. Accordingly, the learned trial court decided the suit in favour of the
plaintiffs on contest and decreed the suit.
17. The defendants filed appeal and the learned 1st appellate court
considered the materials on record and on the basis of pleadings of the
parties, framed the following points for determination: –
(1) Whether the sale deed no. 3043 dated 15.12.92 is a
valid document?
(2) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is within time?
(3)Whether the judgment dated 29.03.2019 and decree
dated 10.04.2019 passed by the then Civil Judge (Senior
Division)- I, Deoghar in Title (D) Suit No. 16/2004 is liable
to be set aside or reversed?
18. The learned 1st appellate court dismissed the appeal and has given
its findings in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 of the judgment which are quoted
as under: –
“15. In this case the main question as formulated above is
that whether the sale deed no. 3043 dated 15.12.1992
executed by Jinni Devi is a valid document or not? Here
the executant Jinni Devi has filed the suit for the cancellation
of the sale deed on the ground that the LTI on the sale deed is
forged one and is not of her. On the other hand the beneficiary
Bhagwati Devi submits that the LTI is of Jinni Devi. Now
question arises how the same can be proved and on whom the
13
2025:JHHC:15803burden of proof lies. It is correct that as per section 68 of
Evidence Act, examination of attesting witnesses are required
to be done in those cases where the document is legally and
essentially required to be attested such as will. Sale deed is a
document which is executed as per the provisions of the
Transfer of Property Act. Although, there is no mention of
essential attestation of a sale deed in the Transfer of Property
Act but the attestation is done to avoid the factum of fraud,
misrepresentation, undue influence and coercion. Here in this
case the sale deed is admittedly attested by one Ramu Ramani
and another Jamuna Devi, and admittedly Ramu Ramni is
minor.
Normally, the initial burden of proving the execution
of a document when it is denied rest upon the person alleging
its execution. Here in the present case the plaintiff has
denied the execution of the sale deed. The onus to prove an
issue has to be discharged affirmative. It is always difficult to
prove the same in negative. When the fact is proved in
affirmative, the onus shift on the other side to negate the
existence of such a fact. In the present case, it is the case
of the plaintiff no.1/ respondent no.1 that she has not executed
any sale deed dated 15.12.92 in favour of the defendant
no.1/appellant no.1 and it was a forged and fabricated
document. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendants
that the said sale deed is a valid and genuine documents. The
sale deed itself is in the possession of the defendant. In such a
situation, the defendant is in a dominating position to prove
the document affirmatively, whereas it will be difficult for the
plaintiffs to prove the same negatively. So after the
defendant prove the validity and genuineness of the sale
deed, the term will come of the plaintiff to prove the document
negatively. Here in this case the defendant is in a dominating
position so the burden to prove the sale deed lies upon him, in
which he has miserably failed. No attesting witness either
Ramu Rawani or Jamuna Devi or even the scribe of the sale
deed has been examined by the defendant. No explanation has
been forwarded by the defendant for their non-examination. It
has also not been brought on record that the identifier Ramu
Rawani is different from the attesting witness Ramu Rawani.
The submission about the fact that the Ld. Court below did
not get the expert examination of the LTI of Jinni Devi on
the application of the defendant by which the defendants
sought expert examination of the LTI of Jinni Devi does not14
2025:JHHC:15803hold good since the defendants have not taken any step
against the order of Ld. Court below. D.W. Punit Deo, who is
an advocate clerk and who has proved the sale deed as Ext.-
B has deposed that the sale deed dated 15.12.92 was
executed by Jinni Devi and there is LTI of Jinni Devi and
signature of the deed writer Sitaram Pandit, whose signature
he has identified, however, in his cross-examination he has
submitted that the deed has not been written in his presence
nor he is aware about the fact of the sale deed.
As held in AIR 1934 Patna 93 titled as Bhagwat Vs.
Gorakh, it is settled law that a minor can not be an attesting
witness, he can not enter into any contract. Although, as per
Hindu Minority and guardianship act mother is the natural
guardian of the person and property of the minor but as per
section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
even being a natural guardian as per sub-clause 2(a) can
not without the previous permission of the court sale the
immovable property of the minor.
As far as the contention about the filing of the suit within
the period of limitation is concerned, the plaintiffs have
averred that they came to the knowledge about the sale deed
only in the year, 2003 when the defendant trespassed in their
property. However, the defendants have contended that they
were already in possession of the suit property and the story of
trespassing was made by the plaintiffs, only to make the cause
of action to file the suit. To buttress the argument the counsel
for the appellants submitted that the plaintiff filed a case
against the defendant u/s 323, 341, 448, 325, 504 read with
section 34 IPC in which although the trial court convicted the
defendants but in appeal the Ld. Appellate court finds that
charge u/s 448 IPC has not been established and
substantiated against the defendant. Hence, it can not be said
that the defendants have trespassed into the property of the
plaintiffs. On perusal of the Ext. G, it appears that the Ld.
Addl. Sessions judge in Crl. Appeal no. 65 of 2016 observe
that since there is dispute pending between the parties like
proceedings u/s 107 Cr.PC and 144 Cr.P.C and also there is
civil dispute pending between the parties with respect to sale
deed no. 3043, charges punishable u/s 448 IPC has not been
established and substantiated against the accused
persons/appellants beyond the shadows of all reasonable
doubts. Other documentary evidences produced by the
defendants/appellants are also related to the year 2003.
15
2025:JHHC:15803
Nothing material has been produced by the defendant that
prior to 2003 the plaintiffs had knowledge about the sale deed
no. 3043. Admittedly, the plaintiff no.1 had filed a case in the
year, 2003 for trespassing, so there is no reason to disbelieve
the fact that the plaintiffs came to the knowledge about the
sale deed no. 3043 only in the year, 2003.
16. In the light of the aforesaid fact and circumstances,
answers to the above formulated questions by this court in
para no. 8, are that (1) The sale deed no. 3043 dated
15.12.1992 is not a valid document. (2) The suit filed by the
plaintiff is within the period of limitation. (3) The judgment
dated 29.02.2019 and decree dated 10.04.2019 passed by Ld.
Court below does not suffer with any infirmity and is not liable
to be set aside or reversed.
17. In the result, I find no merit in the present appeal.
Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. The judgment and
decree of the Ld. Court below is confirmed. No order with
regard to the cost of the appeal. Any pending application is
also disposed off accordingly.”
19. Accordingly, the learned 1st appellate court dismissed the appeal
and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court.
Arguments of the appellants as recorded in order dated 03.03.2025 on
substantial questions of law as framed vide order dated 27.02.2025
20. The learned counsel for the appellants while referring to the plaint
had submitted that the plaint had two schedules i.e. Schedule-A and
Schedule-B and the suit was filed for a declaration that the sale-deed No.
3043 dated 15.12.1992 in connection with Schedule-B property was void
and be cancelled. However, the boundary of the property in the sale-deed
did not match. The learned counsel also submitted that in Schedule-B of
the property, the municipal ward No. 15 and part of plot No. 1074, as
mentioned in the map to the sale-deed, is not mentioned. The learned
counsel had also submitted that in Schedule-A to the plaint the plot
number has been mentioned as 1455.
21. However, it revealed during the course of hearing as recorded in
order dated 03.03.2025 at paragraph 9 that on the body of the sale-deed,
16
2025:JHHC:15803
the plot number has been mentioned as 1075 which itself is not matching
with the plot number mentioned in the map of the sale deed.
22. The learned counsel for the appellants further referred to Order VII
Rule 3 and Order XX Rule 9 of CPC to submit that if the description of
the property was not matching with that of the sale-deed then under such
circumstances, the suit itself was hit by Order VII Rule 3 of CPC and no
decree could have been drawn as such a decree would have been a non-
executable decree. The learned counsel had also relied upon the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1996) 6 SCC 699
(Nahar Singh vs. Harnak Singh & Others), paragraph 5. The learned
counsel had submitted that on account of discrepancy in the description of
property, the 2nd substantial question of law as framed vide order dated
27.02.2025 is fit to be answered in favour of the appellants. He had also
submitted that if the 2nd substantial question of law is answered in favour
of the appellants, there may not be any need to enter into the 1st
substantial question of law. However, with regard to the 1st substantial
question of law, the learned counsel had submitted that the sale-deed is a
registered document and there is a presumption that it was validly
executed and the onus was not discharged by the plaintiffs with regard to
any discrepancy in the matter of execution of the sale-deed. He had also
submitted that the learned courts have given concurrent findings that the
sale-deed was validly executed.
23. The learned counsel for the appellants had relied upon the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 5 SCC 713
(Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain & Others vs. Ramakant Eknath
Jadoo) (paragraphs 19 and 34) to submit that once there is a registered
document there is a presumption that the transaction was genuine. He had
also submitted that it has been held that as soon as the sale-deed is
registered the title passes away to the vendee. He also relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 5 SCC
353 (Prem Singh & Others vs. Birbal & Others) (paragraphs 27 and 28)
to submit that if the vendor is a minor and sale deed was void, he has the
17
2025:JHHC:15803
option to file a suit to get the property and for this he can either file a suit
within 12 years of the deed or within 3 three years of attaining majority.
He had submitted that in the present case, the deed was executed by some
of the plaintiffs who were minors but they did not exercise any such
option. He had also submitted that though in the plaint no such plea was
taken that some of the plaintiffs were minor at the relevant point of time,
but this fact has come up through the written statement, however, the age
of such minors has neither come up in the plaint nor in the written
statement. The learned counsel had also submitted that in the written
statement, it has come that some of the plaintiffs were minor at the time of
death of their father but nothing has come about their age as on the date of
execution of the deed. He submitted that it has not come either in the
plaint or in the written statement as to when the former husband of the
plaintiff No. 1 had expired. The learned counsel had submitted that the
plaintiffs never raised a plea that the sale-deed was void on account of the
fact that plaintiffs other than the plaintiff No. 1 were minor at the time of
execution of the sale-deed.
Arguments of the respondents as recorded in order dated 03.03.2025
on substantial questions of law as framed vide order dated 27.02.2025
24. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, had
submitted that the defendants in their written statement neither raised any
objection with regard to identity of the property nor they raised any
objection that the description of the property as mentioned in the sale-
deed was not matching. He had submitted that the parties did not join
issue with regard to the identity of the property. Had such an issue been
raised, then the plaintiffs could have adduced evidence as to how and why
the boundary was not matching. The boundaries may change from time to
time. He had submitted that the area is certainly matching. He had further
submitted that since the parties did not join issue with regard to the
identity of the property, there is no occasion to hold that the suit was
barred by virtue of Order VII Rule 3 of CPC. The learned counsel had
also submitted that Order VII Rule 3 of CPC does not provide that the
18
2025:JHHC:15803
boundaries of the property are to be mentioned as the same might have
been mentioned in the sale deed. What is important is that the property
should be identified. He submitted that once the identity of the property is
not in dispute, the 2nd substantial question of law is fit to be answered in
favour of the respondents.
25. With regard to 1st substantial question of law, the learned counsel
had submitted that as per the written statement, the plaintiffs other than
plaintiff No. 1 were minors and therefore, in absence of required
permission from the competent court in terms of Section 8 of Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the sale-deed was void at least so
far as the minors are concerned. The learned counsel had further
submitted that once the plaintiff no. 1 stated that she did not execute the
sale-deed, the onus was upon the defendants to prove that she had
executed the sale-deed and this onus was not discharged by the defendants
and therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the plaintiffs
merely because the deed was registered.
Rejoinder arguments of the appellants.
26. In response, the learned counsel for the appellants had submitted
that there is a presumption in connection with registered sale-deed and it
was for the plaintiffs to prima-facie rebut the presumption and no steps
were taken by the plaintiffs to get the finger print or signature examined
through any finger print expert or handwriting expert.
Findings of this Court
Substantial question of law no.(i)
27. On the face of sale deed no. 3043 dated 15.12.1992 (exhibit-B), it
was executed by P.W.- 7 Jinni Devi (plaintiff no. 1) on behalf of herself
and also on behalf of her 3 sons namely, Ram Rawani @ Ramu Rawani,
Binod Rawani and Ganesh Rawani, all sons of Chiman Rawani and in the
sale-deed itself, it has been mentioned that all the 3 sons were minor at the
relevant point of time. The plaintiffs were Jinni Devi and her sons/legal
heirs of her sons. Both the learned courts have set aside the registered sale
deed (exhibit-B). In this backdrop, the presumption in connection with
19
2025:JHHC:15803
due execution of registered sale deed assumes importance and accordingly
1st substantial question of law has been framed in this regard.
28. In the judgement reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353 in the case of
“Prem Singh v. Birbal” it has been held that when a document is valid,
no question arises of its cancellation and when a document is void ab
initio, a decree for setting aside the same would not be necessary as the
same is non est in the eye of the law, as it would be a nullity. However,
once a suit is filed by a plaintiff for cancellation of a transaction, it would
be governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act and even if Article 59 is
not attracted, the residuary article would be attracted. It has also been held
that there is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed
and therefore, a registered document prima facie would be valid in law
and the onus of proof would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut
the presumption. Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 27 and 28 of the aforesaid
judgement are quoted as under:-
“16. When a document is valid, no question arises of its
cancellation. When a document is void ab initio, a decree for
setting aside the same would not be necessary as the same is
non est in the eye of the law, as it would be a nullity.
17. Once, however, a suit is filed by a plaintiff for
cancellation of a transaction, it would be governed by Article
59. Even if Article 59 is not attracted, the residuary article
would be.
18. Article 59 would be attracted when coercion, undue
influence, misappropriation or fraud which the plaintiff
asserts is required to be proved. Article 59 would apply to
the case of such instruments. It would, therefore, apply where
a document is prima facie valid. It would not apply only to
instruments which are presumptively invalid. (See Unni v.
Kunchi Amma and Sheo Shankar Gir v. Ram Shewak
Chowdhri).
27. There is a presumption that a registered document is
validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima
facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be
on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In
the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the
said presumption.
28. If a deed was executed by the plaintiff when he was a
20
2025:JHHC:15803minor and it was void, he had two options to file a suit to get
the property purportedly conveyed thereunder. He could
either file the suit within 12 years of the deed or within 3
years of attaining majority. Here, the plaintiff did not either
sue within 12 years of the deed or within 3 years of attaining
majority. Therefore, the suit was rightly held to be barred by
limitation by the trial court.”
29. In the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of “Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo“
reported in (2009) 5 SCC 713 it has been held in paragraph 19 that when a
deed is registered one it carries a presumption that the transaction was a
genuine one. In the said case, the respondent was the son of the vendor
and was the attesting witness and the respondent categorically denied the
execution of the registered deed and denied to have attested the document
but did not get himself examined. Ultimately, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held in the said case that an adverse inference should have been drawn
against him and while upholding the registered sale deed, the Hon’ble
Court held that the deed of sale being a registered one, the onus was on
the person challenging the sale deed to show that the deed was not
executed or otherwise did not reflect the true nature of transaction.
30. In the present case, the learned 1st appellate court while upholding
the judgement of the learned trial court observed that the sale deed is
attested by two witnesses, namely, Ramu Rawani, [who was admittedly a
minor] and Jamuna Devi [who was never produced as a witness by the
defendants]. The learned 1st appellate court found that the defendants
were in possession of the original sale deed and observed that the initial
burden of proving the execution of a document, when its execution is
denied, rests upon the person alleging its execution and was also of the
view that after the defendants would prove the validity and genuineness of
the sale deed affirmatively, the turn will come to the plaintiffs to prove the
document negatively.
31. This court finds that such an approach of throwing the burden of
proof of due execution of the registered sale deed upon the party relying
upon the registered sale deed is contrary to law laid down in Prem Singh
21
2025:JHHC:15803
Vs. Birbal (supra) and also Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain Vs.
Ramakant Eknath Jadoo (supra) wherein it has been held that when a
deed is a registered one, it carries a presumption that the document was
validly executed, transaction was a genuine one and a registered document
would prima-facie be valid in law and the onus to prove that it was
invalid would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the
presumption.
32. However, it is still to be examined as to whether the plaintiffs have
discharged their onus of proof that sale deed no. 3043 dated 15.12.1992
(exhibit-B) was invalid by leading evidence in this case to rebut the
presumption.
33. The alleged vendor of the property covered by sale deed no. 3043
dated 15.12.1992 (exhibit-B) was examined as P.W.- 7 Jinni Devi
(plaintiff no. 1) and the purchaser of the property covered by sale deed no.
3043 dated 15.12.1992 (exhibit-B) was examined as D.W.-3 Bhagwati
Devi. One of the attesting witnesses of the sale deed no. 3043 dated
15.12.1992 (exhibit-B) was Ram Rawani (son of the plaintiff no. 1) who
had expired prior to filing of the suit and the other witness, namely
Jamuna Devi, has not been examined in the case.
34. Two points were taken up to challenge the sale deed no. 3043 dated
15.12.1992 (exhibit-B), first, P.W.- 7 Jinni Devi (plaintiff no. 1) never
executed the sale deed and second, the plaintiff no. 1 did not take the
required permission to execute the sale deed no. 3043 dated 15.12.1992
(exhibit-B) on behalf of her minor sons, under Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956.
35. In the present case, the plaintiffs claimed that the sale deed dated
15.12.1992 (exhibit-B) was void having not been executed by the mother
namely, Jinni Devi (plaintiff no. 1) on behalf of herself and on behalf of
her three minor sons. Plaintiff no. 1 completely denied execution of the
sale deed and also receipt of the consideration amount and she was also
examined as a witness in the suit. During her evidence also she reiterated
that she had not executed the sale deed and was also cross examined but
22
2025:JHHC:15803
her statement remained intact. The sons of the plaintiff no.1 and legal
heirs of her sons were co-plaintiffs and they asserted that the registered
deed was forged and fabricated as they had never executed the same and
further in absence of any permission of the court under the provisions of
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the alleged sale deed was void.
The oral evidence of the plaintiff no. 1 that she had not executed the sale
deed (exhibit B) remained intact. The impugned judgement of the learned
1st appellate court reveals that the defendants had filed an application for
examination of finger print of the executor of the sale deed (exhibit-B),
that is of that of the plaintiff no. 1 (P.W-7) but such a prayer was declined
and the defendants did not take any further steps in this regard. Moreover,
the other witness to the sale deed Jamuna Devi has not been examined by
the defendants to counter the evidence of the plaintiff no. 1 for the reasons
best known to the defendants and this aspect of the matter has also been
considered by the learned 1st appellate court. This Court finds that the
evidence of Plaintiff no.1 was enough to rebut the presumption of due
execution of the sale deed (exhibit-B) and then it was for the defendants to
prove the contrary which they miserably failed to prove. As recorded by
the learned 1st appellate court that D.W. Punit Deo, who was an advocate
clerk and who proved the sale deed as Exhibit-B, had deposed that the sale
deed dated 15.12.1992 was executed by Jinni Devi and there was LTI of
Jinni Devi and signature of the deed writer Sitaram Pandit, whose
signature he had identified, however, in his cross-examination he had
submitted that the deed was not written in his presence nor he was aware
about the fact of the sale deed. As already stated above, the other witness
to the sale deed Jamuna Devi has not been examined by the defendants to
prove the execution of the sale deed (exhibit-B).
36. This court finds that even if the case is seen by presuming that the
sale deed (exhibit-B) was executed by the plaintiff no.1 on the ground of
presumption of its execution as it was a registered document, such
presumption does not help the defendants in any manner as there is
concurrent findings of both the learned courts that the plaintiff no. 1
23
2025:JHHC:15803
(mother) did not have the required authority/permission from the court to
execute sale deed (exhibit-B) on behalf of her minor sons.
37. No substantial question of law has been framed in connection with
the point of limitation and both the learned courts have held that the suit
was not barred by limitation. The exact age of the minors has not been
brought on record by either party, but it is apparent from the records that
the suit was filed within 12 years of execution of the sale deed (exhibit-B).
38. In the present case, both the learned courts have held that the suit
was filed within the period of limitation and the plaintiffs included the
minor sons of Jinni Devi on whose behalf the sale-deed was executed.
39. This Court is of the considered view that the learned courts have
rightly held that Jinni devi was not competent to execute the sale deed
(exhibit-B) on behalf of the minors as under Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956 no person can transfer the property of minor
without the permission of the Court. The learned courts have set-aside the
sale-deed on both the grounds; by holding that the LTI of Jinni Devi was
forged and execution of sale-deed on behalf of her minor children was
against the provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
40. This Court finds that admittedly there was no compliance of the
provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 by Jinni Devi
and even if it is assumed that she had executed the sale-deed by putting
her LTI, the same was certainly a void document, inasmuch as, the
executors of the sale-deed included 3 minor sons of Jinni Devi and no
permission was taken from the court in terms of Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956 to transfer the property on behalf of minors. This
Court finds that the onus on the plaintiffs to challenge the legality and
validity of the sale-deed dated 15.12.1992 has been duly discharged even
after taking into consideration the presumption regarding execution of the
registered sale deed. Therefore, the onus was upon the defendants to prove
that Jinni Devi had the requisite permission from the Court to execute the
sale-deed on behalf of her minor sons also. The defendants have
completely failed to discharge their onus and the learned courts have
24
2025:JHHC:15803
considered the materials on record and have set-aside the sale-deed
(exhibit-B) on the ground of absence of permission from the Court under
the provision of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. This Court
finds no illegality in the findings recorded by both the learned courts. It is
held that the learned courts have not committed any illegality in
interpretation of the document of title i.e. Ext. B Sale deed dated 15.12.1992
no. 3043, which is a registered document and the materials on record goes to
show that the presumption that the sale deed was validly executed being a
registered one, was duly rebutted by the plaintiffs who had challenged its
validity in law. The learned courts have rightly set-aside the sale deed. The
substantial question of law no. (i) is accordingly answered against the
appellants and in favour of the respondents.
Substantial question of law no. (ii)
41. Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure is as under:
“3. Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property.–
Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the
plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify
it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or
numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify
such boundaries or numbers.”
42. With respect to the 2nd substantial question of law, the core
argument of the appellants is that there is discrepancy in description of the
suit property vis-à-vis the description of the property in the sale-deed,
which is subject matter of cancellation. The details of the property as
mentioned in Schedule-A and B to the plaint are as under:
SCHEDULE-A
In the District of Deoghar, P.S., Sub-division- Madhupur in Mouza-
Patharchapti, J.B. No. 59/18 (old) 198/A (new) bearing Holding No.
36/C ward No. 15 of Madhupur Municipality bearing settlement plot
No. 1455 area measuring 2 kathas 15 dhurs of basouri land together
with building etc.
It is butted and bounded as follows:
North:- Plaintiff's Land
South:- Gochar Land
East:- Land of Rajeev Sah
West: - Land of Jamuna Devi
25
2025:JHHC:15803
SCHEDULE-B
In the District of Deoghar, Sub-division and P.S. Madhupur, in Mouza-
Patharchapti under J.B. No. 59/18 (old) 198/A (new) area measuring of
1 katha 6 dhurs together 4 room.
It is butted and bounded as follows:
North:- Road
South:- Gochar Land
East:- Land of Rajeev Sah
West:- Land of Jamuna Devi
43. As per the plaint, schedule – B property is said to be covered by sale
deed no. 3043 dated 15.12.1992 (exhibit-B) and is a part of schedule – A
property. As per the written statement of the defendants, the full
description of the land which was settled in favour of late Chiman
Rawani, has been given as under:
4 Kathas of Basouri land bearing Survey plot no. 1455 and
Town plot no. 1075, under Thoka (Jamabandi) no. 198 within
Ward no. 15, under Halka of Madhupur Municipality.
44. The registered sale-deed which is subject matter of consideration
was marked as exhibit- B and said to be covered by schedule B of the
plaint. The description of the property as shown in the body of the sale-
deed is as under:
“Land within Thana No.271, District, Subdivision and Sub-
registry Deoghar, Present subdivision Madhupur, Thana
Madhupur, Taluk Pathrol, mouza Patharchapti, Nature of land
Basoudi, area 1 Katha 6 Dhurs, Part of Plot No. 1075 under
Thoka (Jamabandi) No. 198(A) within Halka Madhupur,
Municipality Ward No. 15, Part of Holding No. 36/C having
boundaries as follows:
North: Land and house of vendors of sale-deed
South: Gochar land
East: Compound of Banarasi Lal Gupta
West: Common road”
45. The description of the property as shown in the map attached to the
sale-deed (exhibit-B) is as under:
“Land under Mouza Patharchapti, Thana No. 271, Within
Deoghar Municipal Ward No. 15, Part of Plot No. 1074, Area:-
1 Katha 6 Dhurs, Shown in Red Colour, Belongs to Smt. Jinni
26
2025:JHHC:15803Devi, W/o Sri Chiman Rawani of Patharchapti, Madhupur &
Now sold to Smt. Bhagwati Devi, W/o Sri Guni Rawani of
Madhupur, having boundaries as under:
North: Land of husband of vendor
South: Gochar land
East: Compound of Banarasi Lal Gupta
West: Common road”
46. So far as the defendants are concerned, they also specifically
asserted that the suit property stood settled in favour of Chiman Rawani
which was having survey plot no. 1455 and stated that the town plot
number was 1075. The defendants asserted that the details of the property
covered under sale-deed executed on 15.12.1992 was as follows:
Land measuring 1 Katha 6 dhurs under part of plot No. 1065,
under Thoka (Jamabandi) No. 198/A under Halka Madhupur,
within Ward No. 15 of Deoghar Municipality.”
47. This Court finds that there is mismatch upon comparison of the
description of property in the sale deed (exhibit-B) and the description of
the suit property as per schedule B read with schedule A (schedule B is
said to be a part of schedule A which gives the plot number) in as much as
the plot number and also the boundaries towards east, west and north do
not match. Further, in the body of the sale deed plot no. 1075 has been
mentioned but, in the map attached to the sale deed, plot no. 1074 has
been mentioned; in the schedule A of the plaint and also in the written
statement, settlement plot number 1455 has been mentioned.
48. This Court finds that as per the plaint, the schedule -A property is
settlement plot no. 1455 and schedule-B property is part of schedule -A
property. In the body of the plaint also, plot number has been mentioned
as 1455.
49. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration of title over
schedule-B property and prayed that the registered sale-deed dated
15.12.1992 allegedly executed by Jinni Devi and others in favour of
Bhagwati Devi be declared void and cancelled. In the body of the plaint at
paragraph 11, it has been asserted by the plaintiffs that the defendants had
27
2025:JHHC:15803
managed to obtain a fake and forged sale-deed and the entire recital of the
sale-deed is also false, bogus and concocted.
50. In the written statement at one place, the defendants stated that
survey plot no. is 1455 and town plot no. is 1075 and while giving the
description of the property in paragraph 6, the defendants stated that the
sale-deed was covering part of plot no. 1065. Further, as already stated
above, the sale-deed at one place mentioned that the suit property was part
of plot no. 1075 in the body of the sale-deed and in the map appended to
the sale-deed, the plot number has been mentioned as 1074. Thus, there
was complete mismatch in connection with the boundaries of the property
involved in the sale-deed and the boundaries of the property mentioned in
the plaint at schedule- B read with schedule A and even as per the written
statement of the defendants, there was discrepancy with respect to
description of the property. What remained matching was that the area of
schedule-B was 1 katha 6 dhurs and property was part of holding no. 36/C
in Ward No. 15 having 4 rooms.
51. The boundaries of the schedule B of the plaint was not matching
with description of property in the sale deed (exhibit-B) and the case of
the plaintiffs was that the entire recital of the sale deed was false, bogus
and concocted and was never executed by the plaintiff no.1 and was
forged and fabricated and hence, the sale deed dated 15.12.1992 (Exhibit-
B) was alleged to be an invalid document liable to be cancelled.
52. This court finds that there was no dispute with regards to the fact
that the disputed property was part of holding no. 36/C in Ward No. 15
having 4 rooms although the boundaries and plot number in schedule A/B
of the plaint and boundaries and plot number given in the registered sale
deed (exhibit-B) were not matching. Even the description of the property
with respect to plot number given in the written statement filed by the
defendants was not matching with the sale deed (exhibit-B). At the same
time the plaintiffs had asserted that the entire recital of the sale deed was
false, bogus and concocted. This Court is of the considered view that once
the plaintiffs had asserted that the entire recital of the sale deed was false,
28
2025:JHHC:15803
bogus and concocted, it was certainly open to the plaintiffs to give the
correct details of the property as per their case and merely because the
description of the property as per schedule A / B did not match with the
description of the property in the sale deed (exhibit-B), the same cannot
be said to be hit by the provision of Order VII Rule -3 of CPC. The
schedule to the plaint has the required description of the suit property and
the property stood identified as part of holding no. 36/C in Ward No. 15
having 4 rooms. Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that the
plaint cannot be said to be hit by the provisions of order VII Rule 3 of
C.P.C. The 2nd substantial question of law is accordingly answered against
the appellants and in favour of the respondents (plaintiffs).
53. Further, the fact remains that the sale deed (exhibit-B) has been
held to be invalid and has been set-aside and such finding has been upheld
by this court while deciding substantial question of law no.(i), therefore,
answer to the substantial question of law no. (ii) loses its relevance.
54. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, substantial
questions of law are answered in favour of the respondents and the
impugned judgements do not call for any interference.
55. This Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
56. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
57. Interim order granted earlier stands vacated.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj
29