2025:JHHC:22299 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 34 of 2023 Smt. Anita Mahato aged about 49 years, W/o Sri Birbal Mahato, R/o Vill.- Jojodih, Tudiyan, P.O.+P.S.-Kharswan, Dist.: Seraikella- Kharswan, Jharkhand … … Defendant/Appellant/Appellant Versus Devan Mahato @ Devendra Nath Mahato, S/o Late Mokra Mahato, R/o Vill.- Chhota Gamharia, P.O.+P.S.-Gamharia, Dist: Seraikella- Kharswan … … Plaintiff /Respondent/ Respondent With S.A. No. 49 of 2023 Smt. Anita Mahato, aged about- 49 years, W/o. Sri Birbal Mahato, R/o. Vill.- Jojodih, Tudiyan, P.O.+ P.S.-Kharswan, Dist.: Seraikella- Kharswan, Jharkhand … … Defendant/Appellant/Appellant Versus Devan Mahato @ Devendra Nath Mahato, S/o. Late Mokra Mahato, R/o. Vill.- Chhota Gamharia, P.O.+P.S.-Gamharia, Dist: Seraikella- Kharswan … … Plaintiff /Respondent/ Respondent --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Advocate : Mr. Yuvaj Singh, Advocate : Mr. Atif Anwar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Advocate : Mr. Madhav Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate --- 13/31.07.2025 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Both the appeals have been filed against the judgement dated 12.12.2022 (decree signed on 22.12.2022) passed by the learned District Judge-II, Seraikella-Kharswan in Title Appeal No. 07 of 2015 and in Title Appeal No. 13 of 2015, whereby the learned 1st appellate court had allowed the Title Appeal No. 13 of 2015 and had dismissed the Title Appeal No. 7 of 2015. Both the appeals before the learned 1st appellate court were arising out of the judgment dated 30.05.2015 (decree signed on 12.06.2015) passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division No. I, Seraikella-Kharswan in Title Suit No. 47 of 2008. 2025:JHHC:22299 2 3. The Title Suit was decreed on contest and the impugned registered sale deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 has been declared as inoperative, void and illegal and not binding on the plaintiff and further a decree for confirmation of possession of the plaintiff over the suit premises has been passed. The learned Trial Court had also directed the plaintiff to refund an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the defendant as the sale deed was canceled. 4. The learned 1st Appellate Court in Title Appeal no. 13 of 2015 (subject matter of S.A. No. 49 of 2023) has set aside the said relief of refund of Rs. 2,50,000/- in the appeal filed by the plaintiff by holding that no such relief was prayed for by the defendant in as much as no counter claim was filed by the defendant to that effect. The order of cancellation of sale deed, which was challenged by the defendant in another 1st appeal being Title Appeal no. 07 of 2015 (subject matter of S.A. No. 34 of 2023) was upheld. Consequently, the cancellation of sale deed was upheld and the direction to refund was set aside and both the 1st appeals were decided against the defendant. 5. Vide order dated 05.05.2025, S.A. No. 34 of 2023 was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “I. whether both the learned courts below erred in travelling beyond the pleadings and giving a perverse finding regarding applicability of section 46 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act in the present case, as plaintiff nowhere pleaded that he belonged to backward class and further neither any issue was framed on this point nor any evidence was led by the plaintiff? II. Whether both the learned courts below erred in not considering that when plaintiff himself admitted to have executed sale-deed no. 3641, dated 26.07.2006 whereby he purchased a plot of land from Trilok Mahto after paying Rs. 3,00,000/-, then Registered sale deed No. 3640, also dated 26.07.2006 executed by the plaintiff himself for a consideration amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- could not be said to have been executed by him under intoxication?” 2025:JHHC:22299 3 6. Vide order dated 05.05.2025, S.A. No. 49 of 2023 was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the learned lower appellate court erred in discarding the judgment of the learned trial court in terms of returning of the consideration amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the appellant as same amounts to unjust enrichment to the plaintiff?” Arguments of the Appellant 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the defendant is the appellant in both the cases. The suit was filed for cancellation of sale-deed by alleging that the sale-deed was executed under influence of intoxication. The consideration amount of the sale- deed was Rs. 2,50,000/-. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial Court cancelled the impugned sale-deed by referring to section 46 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and such cancellation was beyond the pleadings of the respective parties, inasmuch as, it was never the case of either party that the sale-deed was fit to be cancelled on account of it being violative of section 46 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and that both the parties were belonging to Backward Class community. The learned counsel submits that both the plaintiff and the defendant were aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. The defendant was aggrieved in connection with cancellation of the sale-deed and the plaintiff was aggrieved by the direction to refund the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- and therefore, two different appeals were filed. 9. The learned 1st appellate Court sustained the cancellation of sale- deed again by referring to section 46 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act without any foundational pleading. So far as refund of Rs. 2,50,000/- is concerned, the learned 1st appellate Court interfered with that direction by observing that no such relief was prayed before the learned Court by the defendant as the defendant did not file any counter claim. 2025:JHHC:22299 4 10. The learned counsel has submitted that consequently the defendant is deprived of the land as well as the consideration amount which was given by the defendant to the plaintiff. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed the entire plaint and the written statement and has submitted that there is no allegation that the sale deed involved in the present case being Sale deed No. 3640 of 2006 dated 26.07.2006 was in violation of the provisions of the Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act; neither there was any pleading that both the parties were belonging to backward class nor there was any pleading that in absence of any permission from the Deputy Commissioner to sell the property, the sale deed was void. In the absence of foundational pleadings, the suit could not have been decided alleging violation of the provisions of the Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. 12. The learned counsel submits that two grounds were taken by the plaintiff for the purposes of challenging the sale deed, firstly that the plaintiff was served with wine and country made liquor and brought to the Registry Office at Seraikella in intoxicated condition and his thumb impression was taken on various papers and that he usually puts his signature as D.N. Mahato but was prevented to sign any paper and Secondly, the consideration amount was also not paid to the plaintiff. 13. The learned counsel has submitted that both the judgements passed by the courts are based on violation of provisions of Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act without any foundational pleading to that effect and none of the two courts have recorded any conclusive finding that the plaintiff was in a state of intoxication on the date and time of execution of sale deed. The learned counsel has also submitted that the fact that the learned Trial Court had directed refund of Rs. 2.50,000/- itself indicates that the trial court believed that the consideration amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid to the plaintiff and therefore the plea of the plaintiff that no consideration amount was paid is also not correct. He submits that the consideration amount was paid as is apparent from the registered sale deed which was duly executed. 2025:JHHC:22299 5 14. The learned counsel has submitted that the learned trial court while passing the judgment was of the erroneous view that the compliance/violation of Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act was a pure question of law and no pleading as such was required and the learned court wrongly recorded that it was admitted that both the parties were of backward class, although the plaint and the written statement does not reveal that such fact was admitted by the parties and no foundation was laid alleging violation of section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act . The learned counsel has also submitted that no issue was also framed in connection with violation of Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. The learned counsel has submitted that in the plaint at the cause title, the plaintiff has disclosed that his caste was Kurmi but as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court dated 03rd October, 2023, in Special Civil Application No. 8506 of 2023 (Kailashben WD/O Mahendrabhai Damodar Brahmbatt versus Upendrabhai Becharbhai Patel), it has been held that the cause title of the plaint or appeal is not the part of the pleading as the same does not include in the verification of the pleadings. 15. The learned counsel has submitted that the impugned judgments cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He has submitted that substantial question of law as framed by this court be answered in favour of the appellant. The learned counsel has submitted that if the sale deed is held to be valid, there is no question of any refund of the consideration amount. 16. The learned counsel has also placed the evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 and submitted that the plaintiff himself in his evidence has not stated that consideration amount was not paid to him. The learned counsel has also submitted that in the written statement, an objection was raised with regard to the allegation of intoxication stating that the plaintiff has not mentioned as to who was the person who was involved in intoxicating him. He has submitted that the allegation of intoxication was also vague. He submits that the allegation of intoxication was not proved. He has also submitted that on the same day two sale deeds were executed one after another, one in favour of the plaintiff (registered sale 2025:JHHC:22299 6 deed no. 3641 dated 26.07.2006) by one Trilok Mahato and other by the plaintiff (registered sale deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006) in favour of the defendant. 17. The learned counsel has also relied upon the following judgments: - (i) (2015) 9 SCC 755 (Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta versus New Era Fabrics Private Limited and Others) para 39 (ii) (2018) 11 SCC 652 (Shivaji Balram Haibatti Avinash Maruthi Pawar) para 26 (iii) (2014) 5 SCC 312 (Arikala Narasa Reddy versus Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari) para 15 and 27 Arguments of the respondent. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer of the appellant and has submitted that even if there was no pleading with regard to the caste status of the parties, the same will not be a reason to decide the 1st substantial question of law framed in S.A. No. 34 of 2023 in favour of the appellant, inasmuch as, the learned trial court has decided the case on the point that the required permission under section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CNT Act”) was not taken and during the course of arguments, it was not in dispute that both the parties belong to the caste ‘Kurmi’ and their surname was ‘Mahato’ and therefore, they belong to the caste Kurmi (Mahato) which is one of the classes notified under CNT Act. He submits that the counsels before the learned trial court had admitted this fact during the course of arguments that both the parties were belonging to Backward Class and therefore, the learned trial court had entered into this issue and found that in the absence of the required permission, the registered sale deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 was void ab initio being violative of the statute itself. 19. So far as the point of intoxication is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the plaint and by referring to paragraph 11 thereof he submits that in the written statement at paragraph 16, there is simpliciter denial of these statements made from 2025:JHHC:22299 7 paragraphs 10 to 12, but no further specification or explanation has been furnished. 20. The learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to paragraph 18 of cross-examination of the purchaser namely, Anita Mahato, who was examined as D.W. 4, and has submitted that in the cross-examination, she initially stated that permission from the Deputy Commissioner was taken and then simultaneously stated that no permission was required to be taken. By referring to the aforesaid cross- examination, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the purchaser was very much aware of the fact that the point regarding permission from the Deputy Commissioner, as required under section 46 of CNT Act, was being considered by the Court. 21. The learned counsel has also submitted that before the learned 1st appellate court or even before this Court, the purchaser namely Anita Mahato has not denied the fact that both the parties belong to the caste ‘Kurmi’ which is Backward Class and, in the notification, the Backward Class ‘Kurmi’ is termed as ‘Kurmi (Mahato)’. The learned counsel has submitted that this fact has not been disputed even before this Court. 22. The learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that so far as the direction to refund the consideration amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs is concerned, the learned trial court had erred in such direction, inasmuch as, the specific case of the plaintiff was that the sale-deed was fraudulently obtained under influence of intoxication and even the consideration amount was not paid to the plaintiff. He submits that when the plaintiff did not receive the consideration amount, there is no question of any refund. 23. With respect to another sale-deed i.e. sale-deed no. 3641 executed on the same day i.e., 26.07.2006 in which the plaintiff was the purchaser, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the same was not under challenge at any point of time and therefore, legality and validity of the same was not under consideration. He has submitted that the plaintiff had stated that the entire consideration amount in connection with the sale-deed no. 3641 dated 26.07.2006 was already paid to the vendor and therefore, it was not correct to say that 2025:JHHC:22299 8 the money alleged to have been taken by the plaintiff while executing the sale-deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 was utilized by the plaintiff to make payment with regard to his purchase in connection with sale-deed no. 3641 dated 26.07.2006. The learned counsel has submitted that the sale-deed involved in the present case being sale-deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 having been obtained through fraud by intoxicating the plaintiff and in violation of section 46 of CNT Act and without payment of consideration, has been rightly set-aside by the learned courts and the direction to refund the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- has been rightly set- aside by the learned 1st appellate court. 24. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that both the second appeals are fit to be dismissed after answering the substantial questions of law so farmed against the appellant(defendant) and in favour of the respondent (plaintiff). 25. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court at internal page 9 para 10(b) which is dealing with the grounds which were taken by the plaintiff in the memo of appeal before the learned 1st appellate court which was numbered as Title Appeal No. 13 of 2015. Findings of this Court 26. The perusal of the records reveals that Title Suit No. 47 of 2008 was filed by Devan Mahato @ Devendra Nath Mahato by caste ‘Kurmi’ by faith Hindu against Anita Mahato seeking cancellation of sale-deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006. As per the plaint, the plaintiff and the defendant were known to each other but the defendant and her husband had greedy eyes on the landed property of the plaintiff and husband of the defendant used to visit the house of the plaintiff and used to give allurement and assurance. On the alleged date of registration of the suit property, the plaintiff was served with wine and country-made liquor and he was in intoxicated condition and was brought to Seraikella. His thumb impressions were taken in various papers, though he usually signs and writes his name as D.N. Mahato but he was prevented to sign any paper. It was his further case that the contents of the deed were neither read over to him nor were explained to him in local language 2025:JHHC:22299 9 and he was also advised to give affirmative answers before the sub- registrar and not to give any negative answer. It was alleged in the plaint that the thumb impressions were fraudulently obtained by Gagan Sao in collusion with Birbal Mahato- the husband of the defendant and that the plaintiff had no knowledge regarding transfer of his property and the plaintiff was not even paid a single rupee nor there was any legal necessity to sell the land. These facts have been mentioned in paragraphs 7 to 12 of the plaint. As per the plaint, the plaintiff came to know after some years from the people in the locality that his property has been purchased by the defendant for a consideration amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- and ultimately, the suit was filed alleging fraud after obtaining the certified copy of the sale deed which the plaintiff received on 04.10.2008. 27. The perusal of the plaint reveals that the suit was filed alleging fraud, inasmuch as, the plaintiff was in an intoxicated state at the instance of the husband of the defendant and one Gagan Sao and that no consideration amount was paid to the plaintiff and in the intoxicated condition he was made to put his thumb impression in various papers though he used to sign his name as D.N. Mahato. 28. The perusal of the plaint reveals that there is no whisper regarding any violation of the provisions of section 46 of CNT Act nor it is disclosed in the body of the plaint that the plaintiff belongs to Backward Class. 29. A written statement was filed by the defendant denying the allegation and the allegation made in paragraph 7 of the plaint was specifically denied by stating that the plaintiff had himself approached for transfer of the suit land as he was in need of money and adequate consideration was paid. With respect to paragraph 8 of the plaint, the allegation was again denied and the defendant stated that the plaintiff is her own Mousa (i.e. her mother’s full sister’s husband) and due to such relationship, defendant used to visit the house of the plaintiff occasionally and they were still in visiting terms. 30. With respect to paragraph 9 – the allegation regarding service with wine and country made liquor and that the plaintiff was brought in 2025:JHHC:22299 10 an intoxicated condition to Seraikella on the date of registration and his thumb impression was taken on various papers and that he was prevented to sign any paper were said to be false, mischievous, motivated and were denied. It was also stated therein that the plaintiff was silent in his plaint as to who allegedly served him with wine and country-made liquor and who prevented him to sign any paper. It was also asserted that the plaintiff was in a free state of mind and in a sound health and received full consideration money from the defendant on 26.07.2006 at Seraikella and on his direction, the registered sale deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 was scribed by the scribe Antu Sundi and thereafter, contents of the said deed were read over and explained to the plaintiff and finding the same correct, the plaintiff had put his LTI on the pages and also put his five finger impression of the left hand in the sale-deed and duly executed the sale-deed before the District Sub- registrar, Seraikella. It was also stated that the plaintiff was identified by Putu Mahato of village Chhota Gamharia and thereafter, the plaintiff delivered the possession over the suit land to the defendant. 31. It was also stated that the plaintiff could sign his name as D.N. Mahato, but at the relevant period and time, he preferred to put his LTI. The statements made in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the plaint were denied in paragraph 16 as being false, mischievous and motivated. 32. It was further stated by the defendant in her written statement that on the direction of the plaintiff, the defendant purchased the non- judicial stamp paper. Thereafter, plaintiff came to Seraikella on 26.07.2006, received full consideration amount from the defendant and her husband Birbal Mahato and two persons namely, Putu Mahato and his full brother Tilak Mahato both came along with the plaintiff and on the instruction of the plaintiff, the scribe Antu Sundi drafted the sale- deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 which was read over to him and then the deed was executed. The plaintiff was identified by Gagan Sao. It was also asserted that after the registration of the sale-deed, the plaintiff endorsed the registration receipt in favour of the defendant for getting the original sale-deed and accordingly, the defendant got the original sale-deed from the sub-registry office and subsequently, the property 2025:JHHC:22299 11 was also mutated in the name of the defendant under full knowledge of the plaintiff. 33. A plea was also taken in the written statement that after receipt of the full consideration amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-, the plaintiff on the same day purchased property from Tilak Mahato and got it registered vide sale-deed no. 3641 dated 26.07.2006 and the amount so paid by the defendant was utilized by the plaintiff for payment of consideration amount. It was also stated in the written statement that the sale-deed also contained the photograph and was attested by the deed writer Antu Sundi and the full brother of the vendor Putu Mahato, and Tilak Mahato identified the vendor before the District Sub-registry office. Putu Mahato identified the witness Gagao Sao and had also put his signature on the same. It was asserted that execution of the other sale-deed bearing sale-deed no. 3641 dated 26.07.2006 on the same day was itself sufficient to show prima facie that the plaintiff was in free state of mind and sound health and upon receipt of the consideration amount from the defendant, he paid the consideration amount in the other sale-deed. 34. From the perusal of the written statement also, it is clear that nothing was mentioned regarding the caste of the parties nor there was any mention regarding any permission having been taken from the Deputy Commissioner. 35. Form the plaint and the written statement, this Court finds that the parties did not join issue regarding requirement of permission of the Deputy Commissioner or regarding their caste status and no plea was raised regarding violation of section 46 of the CNT Act which provides that for transfer of land of Backward Class as notified, the permission is required to be taken from the concerned Deputy Commissioner. 36. The learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration: (i) Is the suit framed is maintainable? (ii) Has plaintiff got valid cause of action? (iii) Is the suit barred by limitation, waiver, estoppel and acquiescence? (iv) Whether sale deed No. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 was 2025:JHHC:22299 12 duly executed by the plaintiff? (v) Whether plaintiff is exclusively possession and title over the suit land? (vi) Whether defendant got right, title and possession over the suit land on the basis of alleged sale deed? (vii) Any other relief or reliefs plaintiff to be entitled? 37. From the perusal of the issues which were framed by the learned trial court, it appears that no issue was framed on the point as to whether the sale-deed involved in the present case was in violation of the provisions of section 46 of the CNT Act. 38. The learned trial court, while considering issue no. (iv) i.e., whether the sale-deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 was duly executed by the plaintiff, recorded the submission of the counsel for the plaintiff that the sale-deed was executed by playing fraud. The learned trial court also recorded that the admitted position was that the plaintiff and defendant are relatives. The learned trial court recorded that the main contention of the plaintiff was that there is admitted fact that both the parties to the suit are members of Backward Class and both are guided by the provisions of section 46(1)(b) of the CNT Act. It further recorded that the counsel for the plaintiff had argued that a member of backward class can transfer his/her holding to another backward class person who is residing in the same police station and permission under section 46(1)(b) of the CNT Act is to be obtained from the Deputy Commissioner, which is mandatory. It was also recorded by the learned trial court that the plaintiff in course of argument and even in the written notes of argument, strongly relied upon the provisions of section 46(1)(b) of the CNT Act and has submitted that in absence of permission from the Deputy Commissioner, the alleged sale-deed cannot be validated and therefore, the sale-deed was void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiff. 39. It was also recorded by the learned trial court that regarding the pleading of law in the plaint that the execution of sale-deed is in violation of CNT Act, it was submitted by the plaintiff’s counsel that it 2025:JHHC:22299 13 is settled principle of law that the pleading of law is not required to be made by the parties in the plaint. This court finds that the aforesaid recording of the learned trial court in paragraph 7 while deciding issue no. (iv) clearly reveals that the point regarding violation of section 46(1)(b) of the CNT Act was raised by the counsel for the plaintiff by stating that the same was a point of law and for that purpose, no foundational pleading was required. 40. The learned trial court also recorded the argument of the defendant’s counsel who objected to the submissions made by the counsel for the plaintiff and had submitted that the counsel for the plaintiff at the fag end of the argument and for the first time, gave a memorandum of argument on law point that since both the parties are OBC, therefore, sale-deed is not valid in the eyes of law and it was submitted that the said plea cannot be accepted and that no such pleading was raised by the parties. It was also stated by the defendant’s counsel that the Deputy Commissioner was not made a party in the proceedings. The learned trial court recorded in paragraph 9 that though the plaintiff and defendant argued on facts, but for the last several dates, both confined their arguments to the provision of CNT Act and it appeared to the learned court from the written notes of argument as well as the authority cited by both the parties that they had confined themselves on the provision of CNT Act relating to the main question whether the alleged sale-deed was in violation of section 46 of the CNT Act. Thereafter, the learned trial court proceeded to decide the case regarding the validity of the sale-deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 primarily on the basis of section 46 of CNT Act and observed that the pleading of law is not to be made in the pleadings. The plaintiff in the plaint had stated that his caste was Kurmi and the defendant never objected. It was also observed by the learned court that the law is not required to be pleaded and only facts are required to be pleaded. The learned trial court also recorded that the question of law and the present case does not depend on the determination of any question of facts as admitted by the parties that they are of Backward Class, so the question 2025:JHHC:22299 14 can definitely be adjudicated. The relevant portion of the trial court’s judgment is quoted as under: “From the bare perusal of the above provisions it appears that it is well settled that only the material facts are required to be pleaded in the pleadings. The pleading of law is not to be made in the pleadings. The plaintiff in the plaintiff has stated his caste being Kurmi and the defendant never objected. In this case the plaintiff specifically pleaded the relevant facts in the plaint although specific reference was not made in the plaint to the provision of C.N.T.Act. However, law is not required to be pleaded and only facts are required to be pleaded. The question of law in the present case don't depend on determination of any question of facts as admittedly the parties are Backward Class so that question can definitely be adjudicated.” 41. The learned trial court also considered the cross-examination of D.W. 4 . - the defendant herself at paragraph 18 wherein she stated that she had obtained permission and again stated that at that time, no permission was required. The learned trial court ultimately held that the sale-deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 was not duly executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant as it was in violation of the legislative mandate of obtaining sanction of the Deputy Commissioner prior to sale. 42. This Court finds that the learned trial court decided the entire issue no. (iv) only on the point of violation of section 46 of the CNT Act. The entire discussion made by the learned trial court does not reveal that any finding was ever recorded by the learned trial court that the defendant was in a state of intoxication or that the consideration amount was not paid by the defendant which were the main issues raised by the plaintiff in the plaint to challenge the sale-deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006. 43. The learned trial court, while deciding issue no. (v), held that the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the suit property as in case of void sale, the possession also cannot be recognized. 44. While deciding issue no. (vi), the learned trial court held that the defendant does not acquire any right, title and possession arising out of the sale-deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006. While deciding issue nos. (i) 2025:JHHC:22299 15 and (ii), the learned trial court held that since the deed was executed without permission of the Deputy Commissioner, a shadow was cast over the title and therefore, the plaintiff had a valid cause of action to institute the suit and therefore, the suit was maintainable. 45. While deciding issue no. (iii) on the point of limitation, waiver, estoppel and acquiescence, it was observed that the period for cancellation of deed is 3 years and the suit was filed within 3 years from its execution, therefore, the suit was not barred by limitation. 46. While deciding issue no. (vii), the learned trial court was of the view that while cancelling the document, the plaintiff needs to surrender the actual benefit received under the transaction which is avoided and consequently, directed the plaintiff to refund the entire consideration amount of the alleged sale-deed amounting to Rs. 2.50 lakhs. 47. Thus, the learned trial court declared the sale-deed as inoperative, void, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff on the ground that it was violative of the provisions of section 46 of CNT Act. However, the execution of the sale-deed and payment of consideration was not disbelieved, rather no finding was recorded in that connection and the learned trial court directed for refund of Rs. 2.50 lakhs. 48. Both the parties were aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial court and filed their respective appeals. The appeal filed by the plaintiff challenging the direction to refund Rs. 2.50 lakhs to the defendant was numbered as Title Appeal No. 13 of 2015 and so far as the defendant is concerned, her appeal was numbered as Title Appeal No. 7 of 2015. Both the appeals were tagged and decided by the impugned judgement in these two 2nd appeals. 49. The learned 1st appellate court framed following points for determination: “(a) Whether alleged sale deed is Bar by Law and same is void sale deed, (b) Whether any relief for getting consideration amount has been sought, whether same is part of pleading of plaintiff, whether plaintiff admits about consideration amount in oral evidence and whether any cross suit filed by Defendant.” 2025:JHHC:22299 16 50. The learned 1st appellate court also considered all the issues and case of the respective parties and observed in paragraph 13 that the court had perused the oral and documentary evidences as well as the judgment impugned. 51. The learned 1st appellate court upheld the judgment of the trial court on both the grounds i.e., on the ground of violation of section 46 of CNT Act and also on the ground of alleged intoxication of the plaintiff prior to execution of the sale-deed. The finding of the learned 1st appellate court is quoted as under: “Perused the oral and documentary evidence. Perused Ext.1, 1/1 to 1/4, Ext.2, 3, 3/1 as well as Ext.A, A/1, B. B/1 and C. During deposition in cross-examination in para-35 plaintiff as P.W.4 firstly stated that sale deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 was executed by him in favour of Anita Mahato. Further it is told that he had not executed sale deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 therein he not stated that by getting consideration amount from defendant he purchased land rather in para-42 in denial he told that it is not true that on 26.07.2006 Anita Mahato given him Rs. 2,50,000/- for selling his land and by said amount he purchased land from Puttu Mahato. It is a case of plaintiff that he used to sign but here in sale deed his thumb impression has been obtained. P.W.2 Birachi Mahato clearly deposed that Devendra Mahato had not executed registry in favour of defendant. P.W.4 deposed that on the date of registry foreign liquor was provided to him and he was intoxicated on the said day he forcibly brought to Seraikella and his thumb impression obtained in various documents. But he used to sign Later on he came to know that he has been cheated. It is admitted by the parties that both the parties belongs from backward classes. So, in view of this court also said sale deed is bar by Section 46 of C.N.T. Act as both the parties belongs from backward classes community hence, permission of Deputy Commissioner is required to sale a land and there is no permission to sale said land. So, said sale deed is bar by law. Any transfer, if made in violation of provision of (1) of Section 46 of C.N.T. Act, shall not be recognized as valid by the court. There is no exception to the provision as contained in (3) of Section 46 of C.N.T. Act. Sub section (3) covers all transfer under sub section (1) whether it relates to SC/ST or Backward Class. As sale deed no.3640 dated 26.07.2006 executed in favour of defendant is in violation of Section 46 of C.N.T. Act hence, defendant has acquired no right, title and interest in the suit land. It is evident that both the plaintiff and defendant are from backward classes of same District and as per section 46 of C.N.T 2025:JHHC:22299 17 Act without obtaining permission from Deputy Commissioner person of said classes can't transfer the land. Plaintiff has filed the title suit within 3 years of the execution date of alleged sale deed. Therefore, I find that learned trial court rightly declared the alleged sale deed inoperative, void, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff and rightly cancelled the same and decreed the suit of plaintiff. But while deciding issue No. VII learned trial court also direct the plaintiff to return the consideration amount to Defendant . No relief has been sought for regarding the consideration amount of said sale deed no.3640 dated 26.07.2006. No parties claims for said consideration amount and no such issue has been framed. The admitted fact in regard to the alleged sale deed is that same was prepared for sale of land belongs to the plaintiff. It is a case of plaintiff that defendant cheated plaintiff and during intoxicated state of plaintiff, defended obtain his thumb impression on sale deed. He neither sold his land nor taken consideration amount. Where as defendant pleaded that plaintiff in sound mind executed sale deed to him and received the consideration amount. Perused the oral and documentary evidence of both sides. Plaintiff (P.W 4) stated in para no. 19 that he earlier given money to Trilok Mahto for a land which he purchase and it is wrong to say that for said payment he sold his land and he had not sold land. During his cross examination in denial stated that it is not true that on getting consideration amount from defendant he purchased other land. Both the plaintiff and defendant are from backward classes of same District and as per section 46 of C.N.T Act without obtaining permission from Deputy Commissioner person of said classes can't transfer the land. Plaintiff himself denies about the execution of the said sale deed in para no.35 of cross examination and make charges upon the defendant that he had been cheated. It is mentioned in para no. 4 of the statement of P.W 3 Antu Sundi on affidavit that on 26.07.2006 plaintiff was intoxicated and not able to move and on request of Birbal Mahto and Gagan Sahu he put thumb impression on deed. So, I find that said part of the direction/ order given by Learned Trial Court while deciding issue no. VII that plaintiff have to refund the entire consideration amount i.e. Rs. 2,50,000/- is not as per law, hence that part of order is here by set aside on the basis of above discussion. Accordingly, Appeal No. 13/2015 is allowed and Appeal No. 07/2015 is hereby dismissed on contest without cost….” 2025:JHHC:22299 18 52. The learned 1st appellate court, while deciding issue no. (vii) was of the view that the plaintiff was cheated in intoxicated state and the defendant had obtained thumb impression on the sale-deed. The learned court observed that the plaintiff neither sold his land nor taken consideration amount and ultimately it was held by the learned 1st appellate court that the direction to refund the consideration amount cannot be sustained, therefore, that part of the trial court judgment by which a direction was made to refund Rs. 2.50 lakhs was set-aside. 53. This Court finds that the learned 1st appellate court, while considering section 46 of the CNT Act, recorded that it was admitted by the parties that both the parties belonged to Backward Class and therefore, in absence of permission under section 46 of the CNT Act, the defendant did not acquire any right, title and interest over the suit property. 54. This Court finds that while recording the aforesaid findings that both the parties admitted that they belonged to Backward Class, the learned 1st appellate court has not taken note of the fact that there was no foundational pleading in the plaint and also in the written statement in connection with social status of the parties and there was no plea that the sale-deed involved in the present case was executed in violation of section 46 of the CNT Act. The learned 1st appellate court also failed to observe that the learned trial court had decided the said point in spite of observing that there was no foundational plea and such plea was raised during the course of argument and in the written submissions filed by the counsel for the plaintiff by observing that the same is a point of law and no pleading is required. 55. While answering the substantial question of law no. I framed in S.A. No. 34 of 2023, this Court finds that the findings of the learned trial court as well as the learned 1st appellate court in connection with applicability of section 46 of the CNT Act and its violation, is not based on any pleading whatsoever. 56. The learned trial court was of the view that no pleading was required to advance arguments with respect to section 46 of the CNT Act and the learned 1st appellate court has not referred to the 2025:JHHC:22299 19 foundational pleading of the respective parties while deciding this issue and proceeded under the assumption that it was an admitted fact between both the parties. 57. This court is of the considered view that the question of admission arises only through pleadings which are essentially the plaint and the written statement and evidence are led in support of the respective pleadings of the parties. In case any new fact is required to be brought on record, the same can be brought on record by amending the plaint or the written statement. The written submissions filed before the Court and the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties do not constitute a part of pleading or even a part of the record of the case. Written submissions are filed only to assist the court and is required to be made on the basis of the materials brought on record, that is, plaint, written statement and evidences placed on record. This court is of the considered view that written submissions beyond records are of no consequences and judgement cannot be based on such written submissions. Since there were no foundational pleadings with respect to caste status of the parties and violation of section 46 of the CNT Act, no issue was framed in this regard. 58. This Court is of the considered view that the observation of the learned trial court that in order to raise such a plea regarding objection under section 46 of the CNT Act no pleading was required, is itself perverse, inasmuch as, in absence of foundational pleading regarding the status of the parties and in absence of specific challenge in connection with the alleged violation of section 46 of the CNT Act and also in absence of any issue framed in that regard, merely by taking such a plea through the written notes of argument and during the course of argument, such a plea could not have been entertained. The allegation regarding violation of section 46 of the CNT Act is not a pure question of law, rather it has to be appreciated on the basis of foundational facts which are not only required to be pleaded but are also required to be proved. 59. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the view that both the learned courts erred in travelling beyond the pleadings and 2025:JHHC:22299 20 consequently, the finding in connection with applicability of section 46 of the CNT Act is perverse. The substantial question of law no. I framed in S.A. No. 34 of 2023 is accordingly decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondent. 60. So far as substantial question of law no. II framed in S.A. No. 34 of 2023 is concerned, this Court finds that the learned trial court did not record any finding with regard to the allegation made in the plaint that the plaintiff was under intoxication and that no consideration amount was paid by the defendant and that he was forced to put his thumb impression before the Registry office while executing the sale deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006. The defendant had raised a specific plea that on the same day, another sale-deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff of the case which was numbered as sale deed no. 3641 dated 26.07.2006 in which the plaintiff paid the consideration amount of Rs. 3 lakhs. The defendant had taken a specific plea in the written statement at paragraph 21 onwards giving in detail the manner in which the two sale-deeds bearing sale deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 and sale deed no. 3641 dated 26.07.2006 were executed one after another to submit that the plaintiff was in a free state of mind and to further demonstrate this fact, various aspects of the matter were pleaded in the written statement. 61. P.W. 3 is Antu Sundi who is scribe of both the sale-deeds i.e. sale deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 executed by the plaintiff which is the subject matter of the present case and also the sale deed no. 3641 dated 26.07.2006 executed in favour of the plaintiff. P.W. 3, in his evidence, has stated that he had written the sale deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 and Prakash Sahu had typed the same. He has stated that at the time of making the sale-deed on 26.07.2006, the plaintiff was drunk and was not in a position to walk. He further deposed that at instance of husband of the defendant namely, Birbal Mahto and one Gagan Sahu, the plaintiff had put his thumb impression on the deed and thereafter, Gagan Sahu had put his signature. However, during his cross-examination, P.W. 3 has stated that Prakash Sahu had typed the deed under his 2025:JHHC:22299 21 instructions and then he had rectified the deed. The deed was read over to the seller i.e., the plaintiff and thereafter, this witness had given certificate on the sale-deed. He had also stated that on the same day, he had prepared the other sale-deed bearing no. 3641 dated 26.07.2006 under the instruction of the seller namely, Trilok Mahato in favour of the plaintiff of the present case and he read over the deed and thereafter, the witnesses had put their signature and he also gave the certificate and put his signature on the deed. This witness has exhibited the exhibit- A and A/1 at the stage of cross-examination. P.W. 3 has further stated that thereafter he had taken all of the parties to the registry office before the Registrar and ultimately, the deed was executed. He has also stated that the plaintiff of the present case Devendra Mahato had purchased the property through the other deed i.e., sale deed no. 3641 on the same day by paying Rs. 3 lakhs and in both the sale-deeds i.e., sale deed no. 3641 and 3640 both dated 26.07.2006, the witnesses are also same. In his further cross-examination at paragraph 11, P.W. 3 has stated that the present plaintiff had himself walked down to the Registry office. 62. The plaintiff himself has been examined as P.W. 4. He has stated that on the date of alleged registry, he was kept under intoxication right from the morning and was forcibly boarded on a vehicle and was forcibly made to put his thumb impression on the sale-deed. He has stated that he was not in a position to walk under intoxication and he was not in his senses. He has further stated that he always used to put his signature and not thumb impression. P.W. 4 has also been fully cross-examined. He has stated in paragraph 32 of his cross-examination that he had not taken any money arising out of the agreement dated 05.06.1984 and in paragraph 33, he has stated that he had come to the registry office for registering the deed in connection with the land purchased from Trilok Mahto and that Trilok Mahto was paid the money on the date of registry. He also deposed that the brother of Trilok Mahto, Suku Mahato and one Gagan Sao were the witnesses to the said sale-deed. P.W. 4 has stated in paragraph 34 that he, Putu Mahato and other witnesses, all of them had gone to the Registry Office and then, sale deed no. 3641 dated 26.07.2006 was executed. He also stated that 2025:JHHC:22299 22 in the sale-deed, he had not put his signature, but he had put his thumb impression. Further, in paragraph 35 of his cross-examination, this witness has stated that so far as sale-deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 is concerned, he had executed the same in favour of the defendant Anita Mahato and then he himself stated that he has not executed on his own the sale-deed no. 3640 in favour of anybody though he had come to the Registry Office on that day and his thumb impression was identified by Putu Mahato who had identified him before the Registrar. He has stated in paragraph 36 of his cross-examination that he got the sale-deed executed from Trilok Mahto in the Registry Office for an amount of Rs. 3300/-. In paragraph 38, he has stated that in his plaint, he has mentioned that the defendant on 26.07.2006 got his thumb impression done and therefore, he has stated that he does not give thumb impression but he puts his signature. He also stated in his cross-examination that his photograph is affixed on the sale-deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006. 63. This court finds that P.W. 3, during his evidence, has in fact supported the due execution of the sale-deed. Though he has stated in his evidence-in-chief that the plaintiff was drunk on 26.07.2006 and the plaintiff was not in a position to walk and he was being held by the husband of the defendant and one Gagan Sao, but during cross- examination, this witness has stated that the plaintiff had himself walked down to the Registry office. This Court finds that with respect to the payment of consideration amount in connection with the other sale-deed i.e. sale deed no. 3641 executed on the same day in favour of the plaintiff immediately after the deed involved in this case, that is, sale deed no. 3640, P.W-4 (plaintiff) has stated that he had already paid the consideration amount. However, the exhibit- 1 is the agreement of sale which ultimately culminated in sale-deed bearing no. 3641 of 2006 reveals that only part payment of consideration amount was made at the time of agreement and the remaining was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale-deed. The said agreement is dated 05.06.1984 wherein consideration amount has been shown only as Rs. 8960/- and Rs. 4000/- was said to be paid in advance. Admittedly, the consideration amount of the subsequent deed i.e., sale deed no. 3641 was Rs. 3 lakhs 2025:JHHC:22299 23 as per the deed which was exhibited before the learned court. The cross- examination of P.W. 4 who is the plaintiff himself reveals that he had executed the sale-deed no. 3641 dated 26.07.2006 in full senses and he himself has stated that he had gone to the Registry Office on 26.07.2006 along with other witnesses and connected persons and also paid certain amount of consideration at the time of registry in his favour with respect to sale-deed no. 3641 dated 26.07.2006. Admittedly, on the same day, the sale deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 was also executed by the plaintiff in connection with which the plaintiff has tried to make out a case that he was not in his senses as he was in a state of intoxication right from the morning. P.W-4 (plaintiff) on the one hand, has fully supported the due execution of the sale-deed no. 3641 dated 26.07.2006 in his favour coupled with payment of part consideration and, on the other hand, has opposed the due execution of sale-deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 by him which is impugned in this suit having common witnesses as that of sale-deed no. 3641 dated 26.07.2006. The evidence of P.W-4 is self-contradictory with regards to his state of intoxication and the plea that he was not in his senses due to intoxication. This Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff had taken inconsistent stand in connection with execution of sale-deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 by alleging that he was in a state of intoxication and was not in a position to understand the nature of things and his thumb impression was forcibly taken. This plea regarding execution of sale-deed no. 3641 dated 26.07.2006 in favour of the plaintiff on the same day was specifically taken by the defendant in their written statement. This is over and above the fact that the scribe of both the sale-deeds, P.W-3 during his cross-examination has also supported due execution of the sale-deed and due issuance of certificate and also the fact that the plaintiff himself walked down to the Registry office for the purposes of execution of the sale-deed. 64. This Court is of the considered view that the learned 1st appellate court has not appreciated the admitted due execution of sale-deed no. 3641 dated 26.07.2006 on the same day with the same set of witnesses immediately after the registration of sale-deed no. 3640 dated 2025:JHHC:22299 24 26.07.2006 while holding that the sale-deed no. 3640 was bad in law on account of intoxication of the plaintiff. It is also important to note that the learned 1st appellate court, while considering the evidence of P.W. 3, has not considered his cross-examination and further, the evidence of P.W. 4 has also not been considered in totality, much less his cross- examination. The only aspect of the evidence of P.W. 4 which has been taken into consideration is that P.W. 4 deposed that on the date of registry, foreign liquor was provided to him and he was intoxicated and he was forcibly brought to Seraikella and his thumb impression on various documents was obtained, but he used to sign. 65. This Court is of the considered view that the learned courts have committed perversity while appreciating the aforesaid evidences and the circumstances placed on record while setting aside the impugned sale-deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 on the ground raised by the plaintiff that he was in a state of intoxication and have overlooked the fact that immediately thereafter the plaintiff had purchased property vide sale-deed no. 3641 dated 26.07.2006 and also paid a part consideration amount with respect to the property. This court is of the considered view that the finding of the learned court is perverse and the judgement setting aside the sale-deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, the substantial question of law no. II framed in S.A. No. 34 of 2023 is also answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondent. 66. The sale-deed no. 3640 dated 26.07.2006 is held to have been validly executed. Consequently, the suit stands dismissed. The judgments passed by the learned 1st appellate court upholding the judgment of the learned trial court is hereby set-aside. S.A. No. 49 of 2023 67. So far as the only substantial question of law framed in S.A. No. 49 of 2023 is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that having decided the aforesaid substantial questions of law in S.A. No. 34 of 2023, there is no question of any refund of the consideration amount to the appellant, who was the defendant before the learned court. 2025:JHHC:22299 25 68. S.A. No. 34 of 2023 and S.A. No. 49 of 2023 are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 69. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of order :31st July 2025 Date of Uploading: 16th October 2025 Pankaj