2025:JHHC:29767 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 291 of 2017 Rabindra Sinha, S/o late Chandradeo Sinha, resident of village – Rasulpur, P.O. & P.S. Maskura, District Aurangabad, State – Bihar at present resident of Village: - Egarkur, P.O. & P.S. Chirkunda, District – Dhanbad … … Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant Versus Smt Sonmanti Devi, W/o Dr Jagdish Yadav, resident of village: - Egarkur Shiulibari, P.O. Kumardubi, P.S. Chirkunda, District - Dhanbad … … Defendant/Respondent/Respondent --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : --- 16/24.09.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff- appellant. 2. This 2nd appeal has been filed against the judgement dated 25.03.2017 (decree signed on 06.04.2017) passed by learned District Judge IV, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No.120 of 2007, whereby the learned 1st appellate court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgement dated 15.06.2007 (decree signed on 28.06.2007) passed by learned Sub Judge VI, Dhanbad in Title Suit No.15 of 2000. The learned trial court had dismissed the suit. Consequently, the plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. 3. The suit was filed for a declaration that the sale deed dated 02.09.1998 bearing No. 5624 is void, illegal, inoperative, and without consideration, and that defendant no.1 has not acquired any right over the suit property through the said sale deed, which may be declared cancelled and set aside. A further prayer was made for a relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant no.1, her servants, and agents from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the plaintiff has lost before both the courts, but substantial question of law 2025:JHHC:29767 2 arises in the present case inasmuch as the learned courts have not properly appreciated the evidence placed on record. The learned counsel submitted that the learned 1st appellate court, at internal page 11, has recorded that Exhibit A, i.e., the impugned sale deed, cannot be said to be void or voidable as it is a registered document, and that a suit for cancellation of the document is not maintainable unless the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of his or her title along with consequential relief. The court has also held that the suit has not been filed by the plaintiff for a declaration of title; rather, it has been filed for a declaration that the sale deed is void, illegal, inoperative and without consideration, and that the document be cancelled and set aside. 5. The learned counsel has submitted that if the prayer in the suit as quoted in paragraph 1 of the trial court’s judgement is taken into consideration in effect, the plaintiff had also sought declaration of his title, and therefore finding of the learned 1st appellate court is incorrect. 6. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the courts have held that the plaintiff has not been able to prove the nucleus of the joint family and the plea that the father of the plaintiff i.e. defendant no.2, was of unsound mind has been rejected. The learned counsel has submitted that though no documentary evidence was produced but oral evidence was produced to show that there was a nucleus of joint family, but this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that the relief as prayed for by the plaintiff in the suit as per the decree is as follows: - (a) That a decree declaring that the sale deed dated 2.9.98 of Dhanbad Sub-registry office registered in Book No.I, Volume No.37 pages 201 to 203 being No.5624 of 1998 is void, illegal, inoperative and without consideration and the defendant no.1 has not acquired any right over the property covered by the said sale deed and the said document be declared cancelled 2025:JHHC:29767 3 and set aside, And the plaintiff’s right in the said property described in the schedule below has not been affected in any way by the aforesaid sale deed, and a copy of the decree be sent to the Registrar, Dhanbad for making a note of cancellation in the volume and Register kept in the said Registry office for the aforesaid sale deed. (b) That a decree for a permanent injunction restraining defendant no.1 and her men, servants, agents and representatives from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the property described in the schedule below in any way. (b1) That if the learned court found that the plaintiff has been dispossessed by the defendant no.1 from the schedule ‘B’ properties during the pendency of the present suit then recovery of possession. (c) That a decree for all costs of the suit against the defendant. (d) That a decree for any other or further relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff be entitled to. Ex facie, on the perusal of the aforesaid reliefs as prayed in the plaint, no prayer has been made for declaration of title of the plaintiff with respect to the suit property. 8. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the specific case of the plaintiff was that defendant no.2, his father, along with the plaintiff constituted a joint family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law. Defendant no.2 had sufficient ancestral land at Aurangabad and had acquired the suit land for valuable consideration by registered sale deed no.8156 dated 09.10.1980. The consideration was paid from the joint family fund as well as from the assets of the plaintiff and defendant no.2, but the sale deed was taken in the name of defendant no.2, who was the eldest brother and the karta of the family. Thereafter, the plaintiff and defendant no.2 constructed rooms and compound wall over the property way back in 1985, all from the joint family income and income from ancestral agricultural land in 2025:JHHC:29767 4 which the plaintiff had also contributed as the plaintiff is agent of LIC as well as engaged in driving private car. It was further case of the plaintiff that defendant no.2 was of unsound mind and he came under the influence of the husband of defendant no.1 and in collusion with each other they got the deed executed in their favour by defendant no.2 and the deed was collusive, fraudulent and consideration amount was never paid to defendant no.2 and the possession of the property was also not delivered. 9. The plaintiff claimed that the cause of action arose on 03.02.2000, when defendant no.1 and her husband for the first time came to the plaintiff and asked the plaintiff to vacate the building on the basis of registered sale deed executed by the defendant no.2 in their favour, which is impugned sale deed in the suit. 10. The written statement was filed opposing the prayer, wherein it was asserted that the deceased defendant no.2 (father of the plaintiff) had acquired the suit property out of his personal and individual income from his service, as he was employed as a teacher in a government school, and therefore it was his self-acquired property. The allegation of unsoundness of mind was also denied. The learned trial court re-casted the issues in paragraph 7 as follows: “1. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable in its present form? 2. Whether there is a valid cause of action for the present suit? 3. Whether the suit is barred under the provision of Transfer of Property Act? 4. Whether the sale deed no.5624 dated 2.9.98 obtained in the name of defendant Sonmanti Devi wife of Dr. Jagdish Yadav by playing fraud and as such the defendant no.1 acquired any valid right title and interest on the suit land and the sale deed No.5624 dated 2.9.98 is liable to be cancelled? 5. Whether the suit land was acquired by the joint independent income of defendant no.2 in his name? 6. Whether the defendant no.2 is legally entitled to execute sale deed No.5624 dated 2.9.98 in favour of defendant no.1? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the reliefs claimed? 8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs?” 2025:JHHC:29767 5 11. The learned trial court considered issue no.5 and after perusing the material on record both oral and documentary came to a clear finding that the suit land was never purchased and acquired by defendant no.2 in his name out of the joint family fund property but the same was acquired by his independent income. Paragraph 22 of the trial court judgement is quoted as under: “22. Thus, considering the above oral as well as documentary evidence it becomes clear that the suit land was never purchased and acquired by the defendant no.2 in his name out of joint Hindu family property but the same was acquired by his independent income. Thus, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.” 12. So far as issue no.4 is concerned, the learned trial court after considering the materials has recorded a finding that the plaintiff could not prove that defendant no.1 acquired right, title and interest over the suit land by playing fraud upon the defendant no.2 by the husband of defendant no.1. Paragraphs 35 and 43 of the trial court judgment are quoted as under: “35. Thus, the oral evidence of the plaintiff has nowhere proved the fact that by playing fraud upon defendant no.2 by the husband of defendant no.1, the defendant no.1 acquired right, title, interest upon the suit land. 43. So, summing up the oral as well as documentary evidence of both the parties it becomes clear that no fraud was ever committed upon defendant no.2 namely Chandra Deo Prasad Sinha by the husband of defendant no.1. As such the defendant no.1 has acquired valid right, title, interest upon the suit land and as such the said sale deed no.5624 dated 2.9.98 is not at all liable to be cancelled. So, this issue is also decided against the plaintiff.” 13. The learned 1st appellate court framed the point for consideration in paragraph 12 which are as follows: “(i) Whether the defendant no.2 was insane at the time of the execution of sale deed no.-5624 dt. 02-09-98 executed in favour of the defendant no.1. (ii) Whether the sale deed no.5624 dt. 02-09-98 obtained in the name of defendant Sonmanti Devi wife of Dr. Jagdish Yadav by playing fraud and as such the defendant no.1 has not 2025:JHHC:29767 6 acquired any valid right title and interest on the suit land and the sale deed no.5624 dt 02-09-98 is liable to be cancelled? (iii) Whether the suit land was acquired by the joint independent income of defendant no-2 in his name? (iv) Whether the defendant no-2 is legally entitled to execute sale deed no.5624 dt. 02-09-98 in favour of the defendant no.1? (v) Whether the suit property was purchased by the deceased defendant no-2 by joint family found. (vi) Whether the instrument sale deed no.-5624 dt. 02-09-98 is liable to be cancelled or set-aside.” 14. The learned 1st appellate court decided all the issues against the plaintiff by considering the materials on record. The learned 1st appellate court has considered the materials on record and decided all the points for determination against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants while upholding the trial court’s judgement dismissing the suit. 15. This Court finds that both the learned courts have arrived at a concurrent finding that property acquired by defendant no.2 was his self-acquired property and was not purchased from joint family property and no fraud was played by defendant no.1 or her husband for executing the sale deed by defendant no.2. The plea that the defendant no. 2 was of unsound mind has also been rejected by considering the materials on record. No perversity as such has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the learned courts calling for framing any substantial question of law. There being no substantial question of law involved in this case, this 2nd appeal is hereby dismissed. 16. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 17. Let a soft copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/email. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 24.09.2025. Saurav/