2025:JHHC:23965 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 403 of 2024 ------ 1. Sulu Mahato, wife of Late Jhurulal Mahato, resident of Village Gangurda, P.O. & P.S. Kamalpur (Patamda), District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand 2. Funu Mahato, wife of Late Dhananjay Mahato, resident of Village Gangurda, P.O. & P.S. Kamalpur, (Patamda), District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. Mansa Ram Mahato, son of Late Doman Mahto, resident of Village Bangurda, P.S. Kamalpur, (Patamda), P.O. Patamda, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand 2. Deepak Mahato, son of Late Doman Mahato, resident of Village Bangurda, P.S. Kamalpur, (Patamda), P.O. Patamda, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand 3. Dilip Kumar Mahato, son of Late Doman Mahato, resident of Village Bangurda, P.S. Kamalpur, (Patamda), P.O. Patamda, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand 4. Rajesh Kumbhakar, son of Pradeep Kumbhakar, resident of Bandhogora, Kapali, P.S. Chandil, P.O.Patamda, District Seraikella Kharsawan, Jharkhand 5. Om Prakash Kedia, son of Bishwanath Kedia, resident of Village Bandh (Katin), P.S. Kamalpur, (Patamda), P.O. Patamda, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand 6. Mahesweta Kedia, wife of Om Prakash Kedia, resident of Village Bandh (Katin), P.S. Kamalpur, (Patamda), P.O. Patamda, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand 7. Abhiram Mahato, son of Khokha Mahato, resident of Village Charak Pathar, P.S. Kamalpur, (Patamda), P.O. Patamda, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand 8. Devendra Nath Mahato, son of Khokha Mahato, resident of Village Charak Pathar, P.S. Kamalpur, (Patamda), P.O. Patamda, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand 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. 2025:JHHC:23965 2 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 2025:JHHC:23965 3 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 do not find any merit in the instant civil miscellaneous petition. Civil Miscellaneous Petition, is accordingly, dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit