2025:JHHC:10165 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 81 of 2022 Baldedo Rabidas, S/o Puran Rabidas, aged about 62 years, R/o Village- Koridih, P.O. Sonardih, P.S.- Katras, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) … … Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant Versus Jageshwar Chamar, S/o Late Dukhi Dome, R/O-Village: Koridih, P.O. Sonardih, P.S. Katras, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) … … Defendant/Respondent/Respondent --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate --- 07/29.01.2025 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgement dated 30.04.2022 (Decree signed on 07.05.2022) passed by the learned District Judge V, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2019 whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment dated 30.01.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division II, Dhanbad passed in Title Suit No. 116 of 2009 has been affirmed. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is the plaintiff in the suit and has lost in both the courts. 4. He has submitted that still a substantial question of law arises in this case as the sale deed was executed without consideration and therefore, it was null and void. 5. The learned counsel has submitted that the plaintiff and the defendant are close relative and the deed was executed without receipt of the consideration amount and when the consideration amount was not paid, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and upon going through the impugned judgments, this Court finds that the 2025:JHHC:10165 2 learned trial court framed specific issue i.e. Issue No. 7 which is as follows:- “7.Was the sale deed no. 650 dated 28.01.2006 executed by the plaintiff without receiving consideration on assurance of its payment in future and is aforesaid document liable to be cancelled on account of non-payment of consideration money by the defendant?” 7. Further related issues were framed by learned trial court as issue Nos. 8 and 9 which are as follows:- “8. Did the plaintiff remained the possession of land transfer by the aforesaid sale deed no. 651 dated 28.01.2006 inspite of execution and registration of the aforesaid sale deed and has the plaintiff acquired any right, title and interest over the suit land on account of his such possession? 9. Has the aforesaid transfer extinguish on account of non- payment of consideration money by the defendant?” 8. The issue Nos. 7, 8 and 9 were taken up together and the learned trial court after scrutinizing the materials brought on record decided the issues against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants by holding that it could not be said that the plaintiff executed registered sale deed No. 650 dated 28.01.2006 without receiving consideration money. The learned court also considered that the registered sale deed which was marked as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit A showed that the plaintiff executed the deed after receiving the consideration amount of Rs. 12,000/- and also handing over the possession to the defendant and thereafter, the property was mutated and the defendant was in possession of the property. The learned trial court also considered the inconsistent pleading made by the plaintiff. 9. Before the 1st appellate court, the defendant did not appear inspite of issuance of notice and service of notice through newspaper publication. The point of determination before the learned 1st appellate court were as follows: - i. Whether the learned court below in view of evidence on record has rightly dismissed the suit of Appellant/Plaintiff? ii. Whether Plaintiff has executed Sale Deed bearing No. 650 dated 28.01.2006 in the favour of defendant without 2025:JHHC:10165 3 receiving consideration amount of Rs. 12,000/- ? iii. Whether aforesaid Sale deed liable to be cancelled on account of non payment of consideration amount of Rs. 12,000/- by the defendant? 10. The learned appellate court also scrutinized the materials on record and gave concurrent findings based on oral and documentary evidences including the evidence of the plaintiff and other witnesses who were present at the time of execution of sale deed and excluded the evidence of P.W-5 who did not appear for cross examination and recorded following findings after discussing the materials and dismissed the appeal by a well-reasoned judgement and rejected the plea that the sale deed was without consideration. The findings are as follows: - “11. ...................................................................................................... ……………….Ext. 1 is certified copy of Sale deed no. 650 dated 28.01.2006 and Ext. A is original copy of Sale Deed No. 650 dated 28.01.2006, both the documents are same to which it appears that the vendor is Baldeo Ravidas and vendee is Jageshwar Chamar. It also appears from these exhibits that it is mentioned in the said sale deed that after taking consideration amount of Rs. 12,000/-, vendor had sold and given possession of the land mentioned in the sale deed to vendee. It also appears from this document that there are signatures of vendor, vendee and witnesses on the said sale deed. It also appears from testimony of PW- 1 that contents of sale deed were read over to him. It can't be said that consideration amount was not paid to vendor by vendee and also he has not raised the matter before the Registrar when he was being enquired by Registrar. Ext. B to B/2 are rent receipts from year 2007-08 to 2012-13 of the disputed land which were issued in the name of Jageshwar Chamar. Ext. C is Correction Slip of Mutation order of disputed land bearing Mutation Case no. 735 XII 07-08 to which it appears that its old raiyat were Chhutu Mahra and Fagu Mahra and new raiyat is Jageshwar Chamar. Ext. D is Raiyati Parcha related to the disputed land which is in the name of Jageshwar Chamar. Ext. E is copy of Raiyati Khatiyan which is in the name of Jageshwar Chamar. Ext. F is Panchayti Paper dated 12.08.2007 prepared regarding resolution of dispute between Baldeo Ravidas and Jageshwar Ravidas. It appears from this document that it was decided by the Panchayat that Jageshwar Das will be the owner of total 7 dec. of land out of which 4 dec. 2025:JHHC:10165 4 of land was given to him by his father-in-law and rest 3 dec. of land was registered by Baldeo in his favour and this decision was made on consent of both parties. It is admitted fact that Respondent/Defendant is son-in-law of Puran Mahara and he has sold 4 dec. of land to the defendant and plaintiff is son of Puran Mahra who has sold 3 dec. of land to the defendant. Plaintiff is brother-in-law of defendant. Considering all the facts mentioned above, point No. (ii) & (iii) are decided against the Appellant/Plaintiff. So far as point No. (i) is concerned learned court below has rightly dismissed the suit of plaintiff. 11. This Court is of the considered view that both the learned courts have referred to the materials on record and gave concurrent findings with regard to payment of consideration money in connection with the sale deed and decided the case against the plaintiff who had challenged the sale deed alleging non-payment of consideration amount. This Court finds that there is no question of law much less any substantial question law involved in the present case. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed. 12. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 13. Let this order be communicated to the concerned court through FAX/Email. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Rakesh/-