( 2026:JHHC:15275 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 184 of 2020 1. Jayanti Devi, aged about 62 years, wife of Late Bhagwan Nand 2. Santosh Kumar Nand, aged about 33 years 3. Shiv Kumar Nand, aged about 30 years, both sons of Late Bhagwan Nand, all are residents of Timra, P.O. & P.S. Karra, District Khunti … … Defendants/Appellants/Appellants Versus 1. Anand Kishore Nand 2. Chitranjan Kumar Nand Both sons of Late Jagarnath Nand, resident of village Timara, P.O. & P.S. Karra, District Khunti … … Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents 3. Rajendra Prasad, S/o Bhagwan Prasad 4. Durga Prasad, S/o Jagarnath Prasad 5. Bishnu Lal, S/o Hiralal 6. Charka Mahto, S/o Matku Mahto, Nos. 3 to 6 are R/o of village Timra, P.O. & P.S. Karra, District Khunti … … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : --- C.A.V. On 19.02.2026 Pronounced On 15th of May, 2026 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.09.2019 (decree signed on 06.11.2019) passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in Civil Appeal (Title Appeal) No. 53 of 2010, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment dated 27.03.2010 (decree signed on 08.04.2010) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division (Munsif), Khunti in Title Suit No. 08/2009 has been confirmed. The suit was decreed partly in favor of the plaintiffs. 2. The suit was filed seeking declaration of right, title and interest over the schedule property and confirmation of possession and permanent ( 2026:JHHC:15275 ) 2 injunction upon the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs. A further relief was sought seeking a declaration that the sale deed executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 dated 03.08.2005 be declared null and void. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the findings recorded by the learned trial court in paragraph 25 and has submitted that the learned trial court has recorded a specific finding in favor of the defendants that the challenge to the sale deed dated 03.08.2005 was barred by limitation. The point of limitation was partly decided against the plaintiffs and partly in favor of the plaintiffs as other reliefs were also involved in the case. 4. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of [Rajpal Singh vs. Saroj (deceased) through Legal Representatives] reported in (2022) 15 SCC 260 and has submitted that in a suit seeking cancellation of sale deed and recovery of possession, it is governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act and not by Article 65. He has submitted that the learned 1st appellate court has not recorded any finding on the point of limitation. 5. The fact remains that the learned trial court had decided the issue of limitation, so far as challenge to the registered sale deed of the defendants is concerned, and the said finding is in favor of the defendants. At this the learned counsel for the appellant submits that in spite of the suit being barred by limitation, the 1st appellate court has confirmed the judgment of the learned trial court; the appellate court ought to have dismissed the suit itself. A substantial question of law arises for consideration by this court. 6. Case of the Plaintiffs (a) It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that there was a partition amongst the recorded Raiyats and according to family partition, plot no. 400 was allotted to the share of Mangra Kumhar and he was in possession over the same till 1957. Mangra Kumhar sold aforesaid plot no. 400 of Khata no. 44 having an area 1.74 ( 2026:JHHC:15275 ) 3 acres to Jyotin Chandra Gupta on 04.01.1957. The father of the plaintiff, namely, Jagarnath Nand and defendant no. 1, namely, Bhagwan Nand both the brothers, jointly purchased the land situated at village Timra, bearing R.S. Khata no. 44, plot no. 400 having an area 1.74 acres alongwith other plots through a deed of sale from Jyotin Chandra Gupta on 13.11.1973 and after purchase, they came in possession over the same. There was partition between the father of the plaintiffs and the defendant no 1 and pursuant to such partition they came in possession of their respected share in plot no. 400 and each was allocated total of 0.87 decimals. (b) It is the case of the plaintiffs that after expiry of their father, they became the absolute owner of the suit land and were in cultivating possession over the same and defendant no. 1 illegally sold an area 1.30 acres out of an area 1.74 acre of R.S. Plot no. 400, whereas the share of the defendant no. 1 is 0.87 acres. The defendant no.1 had the sale deed in favour of his wife defendant no. 2 on 03.08.2005. The plaintiffs are in possession over their share of 0.87 acres of land in cultivating possession and sale deed do not affect the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs as the defendant no. 1 had no authority to transfer the lands of the plaintiffs and the sale deed have not affected the right of the plaintiffs and are not binding upon them. (c) Plaintiffs prayed to adjudicate the right, title, interest and possession over the property in suit fully described in schedule of the suit land to the plaint, their title of the same be declared and possession be confirmed. Case of the Defendants (i) The defendants have contested the suit by stating the suit is not maintainable and is grossly barred by law of limitation. The suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of the parties. The suit is also bad for waiver, acquiescence and adverse possession and ouster. ( 2026:JHHC:15275 ) 4 (ii) It is the specific case of the defendants that the plaintiffs have not come under suit with clear hands and they have no cause of action for the suit. (iii) It is not true that plot no. 400 area 1.74 acres only was sold by Raiyats to Jyotin Chandra Gupta. The entire khata alongwith other plots area 5.78 acres were purchased by Jyotin Chandra Gupta vide registered deed of sale dated 05.01.1957 and he came in khas and exclusive possession over the entire land. (iv) The defendants stated that Jyotin Chandra Gupta sold the land by registered deed of sale in the name of Jagarnath Nand and Bhagwan Nand (defendant no.1) by registered deed of sale on 13.11.73, the entire khata no. 14 for an area of 5.78 acres not only the plot no. 400 area 1.74 acres and entire consideration amount paid to vendor Jyotin Chandra Gupta only by Bhagwan Nand and came in exclusive possession of entire Khata since 13.11.73 with all valid right and interest without any let or hindrance from any corner. (v) The defendants stated that since the father of the plaintiffs never objected in any manner with regards to sale of suit land in the year 2005 till his death who died on 14.04.2009 and after his death, the plaintiff, son of Jagarnath nand filed the suit on 09.02.2009 without any proper justification. The defendants had also stated that the defendant no. 1 had executed a deed of sale in favor of defendant no. 2 of plot no. 400 area 1.30 acres, out of 1.74 acres and delivered all valid right, title, interest and possession to defendant no. 2 and she came in peaceful possession over the same. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the learned trial court had framed the following issues for consideration: - “(i) Whether the suit is maintainable and plaintiffs have valid cause of action for the suit? (ii) Whether the suit is barred by law of Limitation? ( 2026:JHHC:15275 ) 5 (iii) Whether the suit is bad for want of non-joinder and mis- joinder of parties? (iv) Whether the suit is hit under the principle of waiver, acquiescence and adverse possession and ouster? (v) Whether the plaintiffs have valid title, right and possession over the suit land? (vi) Whether the sale deed dated 03.08.2005 is null and void and never been acted upon? (vii) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought for or any other relief in case and equity?” 8. Learned Trial Court recorded a finding that on the basis of documentary evidences placed on record, 1.74 acres of land in the disputed plot i.e. Plot No. 400 was acquired in the name of Jagarnath Nand and Bhagwan Nand in the year 1973. The court also recorded a finding that the property on the disputed plot was jointly acquired by Jagarnath Nand and Bhagwan Nand and they jointly had title over the property. 9. With respect to the previous partition on 09.01.1989, the learned trial court considered the materials on record including the recitals in the sale deeds executed by Bhagwan Nand i.e. Exhibit-5 and 5/A whereby he sold 44 decimals of land with respect to his half share of 87 decimals in plot no. 400 having area 1.74 acres and held that there was partition between Jagarnath Nand and Bhagwan Nand with respect to plot no. 400 and each got 87 decimals of land out of which 44 decimals were already sold by Bhagwan Nand and held that the previous partition was duly proved by the plaintiffs between Jagarnath Nand and Bhagwan Nand. The court also recorded that there was partition between Jagarnath Nand and Bhagwan Nand and each got 87 decimals in plot no. 400 and Bhagwan Nand sold 44 decimals out of his allotted share of 87 decimals. The court also held that plaintiffs had also proved that they were in possession of the property to the extent of 87 decimals of land to the share of their father ( 2026:JHHC:15275 ) 6 namely Jagannath Nand. The court held that defendant no. 1 was having title only with respect to the 43 decimals of land in plot no. 400 as he had already sold 44 decimals over the disputed plot out of his total share of 87 decimals and ultimately held that sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of his wife defendant no. 2 to the extent it related to an area excess of 43 decimals was not binding on the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were already in possession of their share. 10. The 1st appellate court gave concurrent findings. 11. This Court finds that the suit was filed seeking declaratory right, title and interest over suit property and confirmation of possession and a further relief was prayed seeking declaration of registered sale deed dated 03.08.2005 executed by the Defendant No.1 in favour of the Defendant No.2 as null and void. 12. The suit property consisted of two parts both falling in Khata No.44, Plot No.400 area 1.74 acres. One part is having area 43 decimals and the other part is of 44 decimals, both having specific boundary. As per the plaint, Khata No.44, Plot No.400 was divided into 4 parts in partition and the suit property consisted of 2nd and 4th part. 13. Plot No.400 area 1.74 acres along with other plots was purchased by the grandfather of the plaintiffs and father of the Defendant No.1 vide registered sale deed dated 13.11.1973 and upon his death, it devolved upon father of plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 and father of plaintiffs having died in 2009, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs. 14. The plaintiffs claimed that there was previous partition amongst their father Jaggarnath Nand and defendant no.1, Bhagwan Nand, defendant no.1 on 09.01.1989 and ½ share in plot no. 400 area 87 decimals out of 1.74 acres were allocated to each and they were in possession. It is alleged that the Defendant No.1 illegally sold 1.30 acres out of 1.74 acres to his wife, the Defendant No.2 vide registered sale deed dated 03.08.2005, whereas his share was only 0.87 acres and out of that ( 2026:JHHC:15275 ) 7 also defendant no.1 had already sold 44 decimals and was left with only 43 decimals in plot no.400. 15. The plaintiffs claimed to be in possession of his share to the extent of 0.87 acres of land and contended that the sale deed has not affected his right, title and interest with respect to his share of the property of 87 decimals and he remained in possession of the same. The transfer has not been effected by the Defendant No.1 as he had no authority to transfer the land of the plaintiff through the sale deed and the sale deed was not binding upon the plaintiff. It was their case that there was family partition between the father of the plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 on 19.01.1989 and Plot No.400 was divided into 4 parts, out which 2nd and 4th part was allotted to the father of the plaintiffs who came in exclusive possession. The plaintiff claimed declaration of title and confirmation of possession. 16. The defendants claimed that the entire Plot No.400, area 1.74 acres was sold to the vendor of the father of the plaintiff and Defendant No.1 alongwith other plots, total area 5.78 acres vide registered sale deed dated 13.11.1973. The entire property of 5.78 acres including Plot No.400, area 1.74 acres was sold to Jagarnath Nand and Bhagwan Nand (Defendant No.1), but the entire consideration was paid only by Bhagwan Nand who came in exclusive possession of the entire khata since 13.11.1973. Thus, Defendant No.1 claimed title over the entire property including Plot No.400, area 1.74 acres. It was further case that the father of the plaintiffs never objected to the sale deed dated 03.08.2005 and died on 14.04.2009. The suit was barred by limitation. The defendants denied the story of partition on 19.01.1989 between the father of the plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 and claimed exclusive title over the property including the suit property by stating that the entire consideration amount with respect to Sale Deed dated 13.11.1973 was paid only by the Defendant No.1. 17. The learned trial court upon considering the materials on record held that the suit property was allocated to the father of the plaintiffs in partition who came in possession and the Defendant No.1 had no right to ( 2026:JHHC:15275 ) 8 sell the said property to the Defendant No.2 and the Defendant No.2 never came in possession of the suit property. It was further held that the sale deed of the year 2005 does not affect the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and possession of the plaintiffs was confirmed. 18. The learned trial court further recorded that vide registered Sale Deed dated 03.08.2005, the Defendant No.1 sold 1.30 acres of land to his wife [Defendant No.2]; the Defendant No.1 had 87 decimals as his share in the disputed Plot No.400 and he had already sold a portion and only 43 decimals remained, although he sold total 1.30 decimals. Thus, Defendant No.1 sold property in excess to his share and the sale deed executed by the defendant no.1 to defendant no.2 was not binding upon the plaintiffs to the extent it related to the land in excess of the total share of the Defendant No.1. However, the challenge to the sale deed dated 03.08.2005 was held to be barred by limitation having been filed beyond 3 years from 03.08.2005. the suit was partly decreed on contest against the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and ex-parte against the Defendant Nos.3 to 6. 19. The learned 1st appellate court framed the following points for determination: (i) Whether the suit land as mentioned in schedule of the plaint was exclusively purchased by defendant-appellant Bhagwan Nand or the same was jointly purchased in the name of Bhagwan Nand his brother Jagarnath Nand ? (ii) Whether the suit land was purchased exclusively by Bhagwan Nand and Jagarnath Nand had not paid any amount of consideration against the purchase of such land ? (iii) Whether any family partition dated 19.01.1989, as stated by plaintiffs-respondents, has been taken place with regard to the suit land between the plaintiffs-respondents and the defendant-appellants ? (iv) Whether sale deed dated 03.08.2005 as such executed by the defendant-Appellant No.1 Bhagwan Nand in favour of defendant-Appellant No.2 Jayanti Devi is a valid transaction or is worth to be declared void and same should be cancelled or not ? ( 2026:JHHC:15275 ) 9 20. The learned 1st appellate court rejected the plea of the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 that the consideration of the sale deed of 2005 was paid only by the Defendant No.1 and no consideration was paid by the father of the plaintiffs. The learned 1st appellate court held as under: “So at this core too appellant-defendant no.1 had himself admitted that the lands including suit land under Khata No.44, Plot No.400 total area 1.74 acres was purchased jointly by him and his brother Jagarnath Nand and thereby he failed to establish the fact that the suit land as such has been exclusively purchased by him only and thereby the appellant-defendants had further failed to establish that to that extent Jagarnath Nand or his successor had no right over the suit land.” 21. The contention of the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 that the entire 1.74 acres in Plot No.400 was joint was also rejected and previous partition was proved by the plaintiff. The learned 1st appellate court recorded the following findings: “This way the defendant-appellant no.1 being vendor of aforesaid sale deeds vide Ext-5 & 5/A, himself admitted that the family partition with regard to aforesaid land under Plot No.400, Khata No.44 has taken place between him and his brother Jagarnath Nand. It further being corroborated from the description of properties as mentioned in Ex-5 & 5/A through which total 24 decimals (12 + 12 decimals) lands were being sold by defendant-appellant no.1 from Plot No.400, Khata No.44, out of total area of 87 decimals only. This way vide Ex-5 & 5/A, this defendant-appellant no.1 had categorically accepted the fact that there was a family partition already held between him and his brother Jagarnath Nand with regard to lands of Plot No.400, Khata No.44 area 1.74 acres and out of that he got only 87 decimals land in his share. Thus the contention of ( 2026:JHHC:15275 ) 10 appellant-defendants with regard to jointness of entire land of 1.74 acres including the suit land has not been established whereas the contrary facts as stated by the plaintiff-respondent regarding the family partition of lands of Plot No.400, Khata No.44 has been fully established and out of that partition, rest 87 decimals land out of 1.74 acres, has been allotted to their father Jagarnath Nand, has also being established. Thus, in this score too, the contention of appellant-defendants to allow their appeal is worth not acceptable.” 22. The learned 1st appellate court further held that sale deed dated 03.08.2005 executed by Defendant No.1 to his wife Defendant No.2 was void to the extent it related to the suit property which was the share allotted to the father of the plaintiffs in partition. i.e. 87 decimals on the principle that one cannot transfer better title than what he has. The learned 1st appellate court held as under: “So far as the validity of sale deed dated 03.08.05 executed by defendant no.1 Bhagwan Nand in favour of his wife Smt. Jayanti Devi is concerned, it is established principle of law that one cannot transferred a better title he or she has. Here as per the aforesaid discussion and from the ocular and documentary evidences available on record, it is being established that the land of Plot No.400, Khata No.44 of Mauza- Timara, PS- Karra, District- Khunti bearing total area 1.74 acres has been jointly purchased by Jagarnath Nand and Bhagwan Nand and out of the family partition, both the brothers had got equal share of 0.87 acres each with regard to that land. It is further being established from Ex-5 & 5/A that out of his share of 0.87 acres land of Plot No.400, this very appellant-defendant no.1 had already sold 24 decimals land to Rajendra Prasad, defendant no.3 and Durga Prasad Gupta, ( 2026:JHHC:15275 ) 11 defendant no.4 in the year 2001. Thus, out of total 87 decimals land of his share, defendant-appellant no.1 Bhagwan Nand had only 63 decimals land, which he may transfer to anyone validly. But from very perusal of the sale deed dated 03.08.05 vide Ex-B, it appears that Bhagwan Nand had sold 1.30 acres land in favour of his wife, which is out and out a void transaction with regard to the 0.87 acres lands as such mentioned in the schedule of the plaint, as the same is exclusive property of plaintiff- respondent through their father Late Jagarnath Nand. Thus the said sale deed executed by Bhagwan Nand (appellant defendant no.1) in favour of Smt. Jayanti Devi, appellant-defendant no.2 is hereby declared void upto extent of 87 decimal lands butted and bounded with the boundary of the suit land, as such mentioned in schedule of the plaint and thereby the learned trial court had rightly held this issue and sale deed dated 03.08.05 executed by defendant-appellant no.1 in favour of defendant-appellant no. 2 is valid only upto 43 decimals only.” 23. This Court finds that there are concurrent findings that there was previous partition between father of plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 and Plot No.400 was equally divided and each got 87 decimals. Out of which the Defendant No.1 had already sold 24 decimals in 2001 acknowledging previous partition and only 63 decimals were remaining with him. By the deed of 2005, he sold 1.30 acres including 87 decimals allotted to the father of the plaintiffs and such sale to the extent of 87 decimals was held to be void by the learned 1st appellate court and the sale deed was held to be valid to the extent of 43 decimals [the remaining share of the Defendant No.1 as he had already sold 24 decimals]. The right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs to the extent of share allotted to their father is previous partition was confirmed. It was fully established that the Defendant No.1 had sold 87 decimals of land having no title to his ( 2026:JHHC:15275 ) 12 wife Defendant No.2 and therefore, the sale deed of 2005 to that extent was void. 24. The Judgment relied upon by the appellants reported in (2022) 15 SCC 260 (Rajpal Singh -vs- Saroj (deceased) through Legal Representatives and another) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the said case before Hon’ble Supreme Court, the substantive relief was cancellation of the sale deed and the relief seeking possession was consequential relief and it was held that when a composite suit is filed for cancellation of the sale deed as well as for recovery of the possession, the limitation period is required to be considered with respect to the substantive relief of cancellation of the sale deed, which would be three years from the date of the knowledge of the sale deed sought to be cancelled. Para-14 of the Judgment reads as under: “14. The submission on behalf of the original plaintiff (now represented through her heirs) that the prayer in the suit was also for recovery of the possession and therefore the said suit was filed within the period of twelve years and therefore the suit has been filed within the period of limitation, cannot be accepted. Relief for possession is a consequential prayer and the substantive prayer was of cancellation of the sale deed dated 19-4-1996 and therefore, the limitation period is required to be considered with respect to the substantive relief claimed and not the consequential relief. When a composite suit is filed for cancellation of the sale deed as well as for recovery of the possession, the limitation period is required to be considered with respect to the substantive relief of cancellation of the sale deed, which would be three years from the date of the knowledge of the sale deed sought to be cancelled. Therefore, the suit, which was filed by the original plaintiff for cancellation of the sale deed, can be said to be substantive therefore the same was clearly barred by limitation. Hence, the learned trial court ought to have dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. As such the learned first appellate court was justified and right in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and ( 2026:JHHC:15275 ) 13 consequently dismissing the suit. The High Court has committed a grave error in quashing and setting aside a well-reasoned and a detailed judgment and order passed by the first appellate court dismissing the suit and consequently restoring the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.” 25. In the present case, the substantive relief was declaration of right , title , interest and possession with respect to the suit property allocated to the father of the plaintiffs in partition and declaration that the sale deed of 2005 executed by the defendant no.1 to defendant no.2 (wife of defendant no.1) being void to the extent it related to the suit property was incidental / consequential relief. Once it is found that the vendor (defendant no.1) had no right to sell the property of the plaintiffs allocated to their father to the extent of 87 decimals and plaintiffs were already in possession, the sale deed executed by the defendant no.1 was void to that extent and not binding upon the plaintiffs and article 59 of the limitation Act will not come into play. The void transactions need not be set aside as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh versus Birbal reported in (2006)5 SCC 353 and in the said judgement it has been held that with respect to person in possession it would be sufficient to seek a declaration that the sale deed is not binding. Relevant Paragraphs for the purposes of this case, 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. 20. If the plaintiff is in possession of a property, he may file a suit for declaration that the deed is not binding upon him but if he is not in possession thereof, even under a void transaction, the right by way of adverse possession may be claimed. Thus, it is not correct to contend that the provisions of the Limitation Act would have no application at all in the event the transaction is held to be void.” 26. Both the courts have held by concurrent findings that the defendant no. 1 had no title to transfer the share of 87 decimals allotted to the father of the plaintiffs. The previous partition was acknowledged and ( 2026:JHHC:15275 ) 14 acted upon defendant no.1 while disposing of total 44 decimals of land to 3rd parties vide exhibit 5 and 5/1 and what remained with him was only 43 decimals of land and he transferred 130 decimals which included 87 decimals allotted to the father of the plaintiffs. Both the courts have given concurrent findings. 27. In view of the aforesaid discussions, no question of law, much less, any substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this 2nd appeal. 28. Accordingly, this 2nd appeal is dismissed. 29. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 15.05.2026 Uploaded On: 18.05.2026 Binit/Mukul/