2026:JHHC:16737 --1-- S.A. No. 100 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI S.A. No. 100 of 2015 ---- 1. Bimla Devi, daughter of Late Ganesh Sahu, wife of Nandlal Prasad Sao, resident of village – Suriya, PO and PS – Suriya, District – Giridih 2. Jashoda Devi, daughter of Late Ganesh Sahu, wife of Mathura Prasad, resident of village – Barh, PO and PS – Barh, District – Patna Bihar 3. Nirmla Devi, daughter of Late Ganesh Sahu, widow of Raj Kishore Gupta, resident of village – Sasaram, PO and PS – Sasaram, District – Rohtash, Bihar 4. Urmila Gupta, daughter of Late Ganesh Sahu, wife of Rabikant Gupta @ Vijay Kumar, resident of Khajanti Road, Nayatola, PO and PS – Patna, District – Patna, Bihar 5. Ashish Kumar, son of Kanhailal 6. Santoshi Kumar, son of Late Kanhailal 7. Ramchandra Prasad Sahu, son of Late Ganesh Sahu 5, 6 and 7 are residents of Dumari, PO and PS – Dumari, District – Giridih .... Appellants -- Versus -- 1(a) Ravinder Singh, S/o Late Shree Kant Singh 1(b) Sobha Kumari, D/o Late Shree Kant Singh 1(c) Subhadra Kumari, D/o Late Shree Kant Singh 1(d) Banti Singh, D/o Late Shree Kant Singh 1(e) Lovely Singh, D/o Late Shree Kant Singh All are R/o Jamtara, PO – Dumri, PS – Dumri, District – Giridih 2. Smt. Archana Devi Barnwal, wife of Dr. Ranjit Prasad 3. Smt. Manjoo Devi, wife of Amar Prasad Barnwal All are R/o Isri Bazar, PO and PS - - Dumari, District - Giridih .... Respondents ---- 2026:JHHC:16737 --2-- S.A. No. 100 of 2015 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Appellants :- Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondents :- ---- 10/10.06.2026 Heard Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 26.11.2014 and decree dated 06.12.2014 passed by learned District Judge, 1st, Giridih in Title Appeal No.33 of 1990 upholding the judgment dated 31.03.1990 and decree dated 11.04.1990 passed by learned Sub-ordinate Judge 1st, Giridih in Title (Arbitration) Suit No.14 of 1987. 3. Title (Arbitration) Suit No.14 of 1987 was filed for a decree in terms of the award filed in the said suit. It transpires from the judgments of learned Courts that the case of the plaintiffs was that Shri Kant Singh, defendant no.1, Ram Chandra Prasad Sahu, plaintiff No.2 and one Nityanand Singh entered into the partnership, known as M/S Singh Construction Co. relating to the construction of road and buildings etc. by virtue of a deed of a partnership dated 28.08.1977. The defendant no.1 and other partner, Nitya Nand Singh had their 25% share in the firm, whereas Ram Chandra Prasad Sahu, plaintiff no.2 had share of 50% in the aforesaid firm. The plaintiff no.1 was also persuaded by the partners of the firm to invest money in the business being carried in by virtue of the partnership deed. Subsequently, the partner, Nityanand Singh, retired from the partnership and his association with the firm was 2026:JHHC:16737 --3-- S.A. No. 100 of 2015 terminated by virtue of a registered deed of dissolution of partnership dated 12.05.1978. The share of said Nitya Kand Singh after retirement from the firm passed on to Ram Chandra Prasad Sahu, the plaintiff no.1, who acquired 75 per cent share in the profit and loss of the business of the partner-ship. 4. The further case of the plaintiffs is that by virtue of Clause 16 of the deed of partnership dated 28.08.1977, any dispute between the parties in respect of the conduct of the business of the firm or in respect of interpretation, operation or enforcement of anything not therein otherwise provided, would be referred to a sole arbitrator or more, may be agreed upon by the parties. Accordingly, a dispute having arisen between the parties, they referred the dispute to seven Punches, namely, Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal, Gul Mohammad, Pannalal Dwedi, Panchanand Sah, Sukhdeo Bhagat, Shyamanand Singh and Ajay Kumar Gupta and parties to the reference agreed to abide by conditionally to the award by the Punches and the said reference was signed and made over to the Punches by the parties for proceeding with the arbitration in the matter. Having heard the parties and examined the documents in question the arbitrators by the parties gave their award dated 15.05.1981 which provided as under :- (i) Clause A Shreekant Singh was directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,817/- to Ganesh Sahu, plaintiff no.1 towards letters dues for the sum invested in the contract business. (ii) Clause (B) Shreekant Singh, defendant no.1, was 2026:JHHC:16737 --4-- S.A. No. 100 of 2015 directed to transfer an area of 0.25 1/2 (and half) decimal of land on the western side of an area of 0.51 decimal land purchased by him in the name of Smt. Rajwanti Devi, wife of defendant no.1, Shrikant Singh under a registered sale deed dated 8.03.1977 which was directed to be executed within 15 days from the date of making of the awards by the arbitrators. (iii) Clause (C) Shrikant Singh, defendant no.1, was directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,759/- to plaintiff no.2 towards the dues of the letters on account of the contract business. (iv) Clause D Shrikant Singh, defendant no.1 was directed to issue bank cheque for the afore-mentioned amount, i.e. for Rs.8,870/- in favour of Ganesh Sahu, plaintiff no.1 and for Rs. 12,759/- in favour of Ram Chandra Prasad Sahu, plaintiff no.2. (v) Clause E, it was further directed that a sum of Rs.42,000/- deposited as security with the authorities in respect of the contract business would be shared by the defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff no. 2 equally after conclusion of the works under contract. The alleged award was signed by the arbitrators on 15.02.1981 and a copy of the award was given to each party. The copy received by the plaintiffs is enclosed in the suit. 5. In accordance with the directions made in the award, Shrikant Singh, defendant no.1, issued a cheque for Rs.8,870/- on 16.05.1981 in favour of Ganesh Sahu, the plaintiff no.1 payable at Bank of India, Ishri Bazar Branch. The said defendant no.1 Shrikant Singh issued another cheque for Rs.12,759/ on 16.8.1981 in favour 2026:JHHC:16737 --5-- S.A. No. 100 of 2015 of Ram Chandra Prasad Sahu, the plaintiff no.2 payable at the same branch of the same Bank. Both the cheques were presented by the plaintiffs for its encashment at the bank which were dishonored and no payment against the cheques issued by the defendant no.1 could be made to the plaintiffs. The fact of the non-payment of the encashment of the cheques was reported to the defendant no.1, then the defendant no.1 paid a sum of Rs.8,870/- to Ganesh Sahu, the plaintiff no. 1, but the defendant no.1 did not make payment of another cheque for a sum of Rs.12,759/-to the plaintiff no.2 in spite of repeated demands. The defendant no.1 despite the award not executed the sale deed for an area of 0.25 and half decimals of land in favour of the plaintiff no. 1, Ganesh Sahu. The defendant no.1 in order to defeat the claim of the plaintiffs not acted in terms of the award and is not willing to abide by the terms of the award filed in the suit. With a view to defeat the further claim of the plaintiffs the defendant no. 1 Shrikant Singh made his wife to transfer the land, directed to make transfer in favour of the plaintiff no.1, to defendant no.2 and 3 by executing a sale-deed dated 03.09.1984. This is why the defendant nos. 2 to 4 are impleaded in the present suit. 6. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs reminded the defendant no.2 on a number of occasions to abide by the award, but the defendant no.1 avoided and not willing to abide by the same and this gave a cause of action for the present suit and prompted the plaintiffs to seek a relief for the award being made a 2026:JHHC:16737 --6-- S.A. No. 100 of 2015 rule of the court. 7. Pursuant to notice defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 to 4 separately filed their written statement and contested the suit. The case of the defendant No.1, inter alia, in light of the judgments of the learned Courts was that the suit is not maintainable and is barred by law of Limitation and on the principles of the acquiescence, waiver and estoppel and the suit is also barred under the principles of res-judicata. No partnership was constituted in which the plaintiff no. 1 was a party to it. The partnership deed dated 28.08.1977 not related to the construction of Dumri Hospital which has been incorporated in the so-called award filed in the suit. The tender of Dumri Hospital was in the name of Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal, who has been figured as an arbitrator for manipulation in order to wrongful gain by the plaintiff. The plaintiff no.1 was never persuaded to invest money in the partnership firm created under partnership deed dated 28.08.1977. The suit has been frivolously filed and manipulated at the behest of Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal, a Mukhia of the local Panchayat with the help of his associates. There was no agreement of the partners to the partnership firm to take up any other work other than incorporated in the partnership deed. The claim of the plaintiff no.2 is also malicious when he has claimed his 75 per cent share in the alleged partnership after the retirement of a partner from the partnership. There was no dispute between the parties in respect of the conduct of the business of the partnership firm, no any such dispute arising out of the partnership 2026:JHHC:16737 --7-- S.A. No. 100 of 2015 firm has been referred to the punches or the arbitrators for arbitration proceedings. Therefore, there was no occasion to refer the matter to an arbitration proceeding. It is ridiculous that the plaintiff no.1 not a party to the partnership firm was called upon to join the arbitration proceeding which renders the so-called award filed in the suit tainted with fraud and misrepresentation. The so- called award filed in the suit is a bag of papers and the same cannot be had the force of the law. The so-called award filed in the suit is the outcome of the collusion of the arbitrators with the plaintiff for the best reasons known to them. The alleged arbitrators cannot direct, in terms of the deed of the partnership, to pay any amount to the plaintiff no. 1 as because the plaintiff no.1 was not a party to the partnership and no agreement with respect to the construction of the Dumri Hospital in the partnership deed. The defendant no.1 cannot be directed to transfer unspecified land to plaintiff no.1 as directed by the arbitrators in the award. The land shown in the award was never purchased by any of the partners to the partnership. As a matter of fact, the defendant no.2 purchased the land under reference out of her "Streedhan" and too much, before the parties entered into a partnership. The acts of the arbitrators in creating title over a land in award is legal and that vitiated the submission of award on the ground of fraud, coercion and mis- representation. The award falsifies the case of the plaintiffs and exposes them for their fraud practiced in the arbitration proceeding. The entire proceeding was manipulated by the plaintiffs at the 2026:JHHC:16737 --8-- S.A. No. 100 of 2015 instance of one Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal to force the defendant no.1 for an unlawful gain. The defendant no.1 further pleaded that the construction of Dumri Hospital was in the name of Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal and that cannot be brought into the so-called arbitration proceeding. Similarly, the arbitrators had no authority to make any direction to the defendants to issue cheques to the plaintiff no.1, a third party to the proceeding or any other matter in which the plaintiff no.1 was a party to it. Above all no such award has been made over to the defendant no.1. Since the plaintiffs have no claim there may not be a question of defeating the same. The property referred in the so-called award is the self-acquired property of the defendant no.2 who has every right to act according to her wishes. The defendant no.1 has no concern with the property standing in the name of the defendant. no. 2. As a matter of fact, no award is made by the arbitrators and the same cannot be made a rule of the court. 8. The case of the defendant nos.2 to 4 in their separate written statement, other than the technical pleadings, is that the plaintiffs have filed a title suit in the garb of an arbitration proceeding and have not made payment of the ad-volerem court- fee and thus the suit is fit to be dismissed. The defendants have no knowledge or have no concern with any Partnership as alleged in the plaint. Consequently, these defendants are unaware of the award or Panchayati filed in the suit. The statement contained in para 4 of the plaint is false and fabricated, there was no Panchayati 2026:JHHC:16737 --9-- S.A. No. 100 of 2015 or arbitration proceeding within the knowledge of these defendants as a result of the award filed in the suit is if-so-facto void and without jurisdiction. The defendant no.1 has nothing to do with the lands under sale deed dated 08.03.1977 which is the self-acquired property of the defendant no. 2. The said land has been acquired prior to the partners entered into a partnership by virtue of a partnership deed dated 28.08.1977. The defendant no.1 never purchased the same in the name of the defendant no. 2 nor he had or has any concern with the same. The so-called arbitrators had no jurisdiction to make any award with respect to the land belonging to the defendant no.2 and the said award is void and not binding on the defendants. The plaintiffs move were full of dishonesty by making false and fraudulent allegations. These defendants cannot be made parties to the manipulation and fraud practiced by the plaintiffs and/or their supporters. The defendant no.2 sold an area 0.25 and half decimals of land towards east out of the total 0.51 acres of Khata no. 49, Plot no. 221/1333 and 221/1334 situated in village Ishri, P.S. Nimiaghat, District Giridih under two registered sale deeds dated 03.09.1984 for valuable consideration of Rs.19,000/- to the defendant nos. 3 and 4 who were put in possession over the same by the defendant no. 2. The defendant nos.3 and 4 are coming on possession over the land sold by the defendant no.2. The allegations of the plaintiffs are that they made a request to the defendant nos. 2 to 4 to transfer the land are motivated, concocted and without any basis. The award filed in the 2026:JHHC:16737 --10-- S.A. No. 100 of 2015 suit is if-so-facto void and the same cannot be made a rule of the court. With these pleadings the aforesaid sets of defendants have urged that the suit be dismissed with cost. 9. Title (Arbitration) Suit No.14 of 1987 was decided by the judgment dated 31.03.1990 and it was dismissed without cost and aggrieved with that the appellant herein has preferred Title Appeal No.33 of 1990 before the learned District Judge-I, Giridih and by the judgment dated 26.11.2014 the said appeal was also dismissed affirming the judgment of the learned trial court and aggrieved with that the present second appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 10. Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned first appellate court being the final court of facts had ignored the oral as well as documentary evidences brought on record on behalf of the plaintiffs/appellants before passing of the impugned judgment and further the learned Courts not framed appropriate issues as required before deciding the suit with regard to an arbitration award to be made rules of the Courts and in view of that these are the law points to admit the present second appeal, as such it may kindly be admitted. 11. Learned Sub-ordinate Judge, 1st, Giridih for deciding Title (Arbitration) Suit No.14 of 1987 framed six issues to decide the suit. Issue No.5 was with regard to the award filed in the suit valid, genuine and enforceable under law. While deciding the said issue, learned trial court has considered that the plaintiff stated that the defendant No.1, the plaintiff No.2 and one Nitya Nand Singh 2026:JHHC:16737 --11-- S.A. No. 100 of 2015 entered into a partnership known as M/s Singh Construction Company by executing a deed of partnership dated 28.08.1977 for carrying out the construction of road and buildings detailed in the partnership deed stipulating that the defendant No.1 and one Nitya Nand Singh will have 25 per cent shares each and the plaintiff No.2 will have 50 per cent shares in the profit and loss of the partnership firm created by them. One Nityanand Singh retired from the partnership and the partnership was dissolved on execution of a registered deed of execution dated 12.05.1978. Thus, Nityanand Singh was not partner thereafter and the plaintiff contended that as per Clause 16 of the deed of partnership dated 28.08.1977 there being an arbitration agreement between the parties in respect of conduct of business of the firm or any other matter which is related to partnership deed in terms thereof a dispute having arisen between the plaintiffs on one hand and the defendant No.1 on the other, they jointly referred that dispute for adjudication to some of the arbitrators by making a reference dated 12.05.1981 and that was contended on the basis of Clause 16 of the partnership deed. The said partnership deed has been exhibited before the learned trial court as Exhibit-1. The claim of the plaintiff was based on the arbitration agreement having clause of arbitration agreement with reference to any dispute between the parties in respect of conduct of the business of the firm. In paragraph No.1 of the said deed i.e. Exhibit-1, this partnership was limited for completion of the works presided therein and those are :- 2026:JHHC:16737 --12-- S.A. No. 100 of 2015 i). 30 bedded hospital building as Raj Dhanwar ii). Halsa, Kapilo, Becko, Group 5 iii). Halsa-Kapilo, Becko Road, Group 2 iv). Kodarama-Jamua, 33 miles road and v). M.I. Scheme Pandri Bench and that after completion of the said works this partnership will stand terminated. 12. In view of the above, the said partnership was restricted to the items shown in para 1 of the partnership deed wherein the appellant herein has contended that in light of partnership business dispute it has been referred to arbitration for execution of the dispute and reference was made to the arbitration on 15.02.1981 in writing. The said reference in writing has been marked as Exhibit-2 by the plaintiffs. The reference in writing, Exhibit-2 was found not mentioning the points referred to the punches or arbitrators for their decision which was found by the learned Court as vague and reference was not specifically disclosed. PW-4, Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal has admitted that the dispute referred to arbitrators related to the payment made for Dumri Hospital. The learned Court has found that Exhibit-1, partnership deed, does not contain the construction of Dumri Hospital. Learned Court has further found from Exhibit-6 that a tender for construction of Dumri Hospital was in the name of PW-4 namely Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal, who acted as one of the arbitrators. The learned Court has further found that the other PWs have further admitted that the contract with regard to the Dumri Hospital was given to Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal, who was 2026:JHHC:16737 --13-- S.A. No. 100 of 2015 the PW-4. The learned Court has further found that PW-4 only nominated the plaintiff No.2 to his attorney for execution and the management of the construction of Hospital at Dumri. Plaintiffs have contended that the contract given in the name of PW-4 was blended in the partnership firm on execution of power of attorney and Exhibit-6 in the name of plaintiff No.2. Learned Court has further considered that Exhibit-1, which is the partnership deed, and in light of Clause-4, there is no provision to include other items under the said partnership deed. Dumri Hospital was not the subject matter of the partnership deed and it was not in the name of any of the partners and in view of that the learned trial court has found that the reference made by the parties to the so-called arbitrators is against any arbitration agreement agreed with the partnership deed and was found to be against the law and beyond the jurisdiction and in view of that the learned trial court has answered the said issue against the plaintiffs/appellants and thereafter the learned trial court after deciding the other issues has been pleased to dismiss the said Title (Arbitration) Suit No.14 of 1987 by the judgment dated 31.03.1990 and aggrieved with that the appellants herein has preferred Title Appeal No.33 of 1990. 13. Learned appellate court has framed the points to decide the appeal and after appreciating the documentary as well as oral evidence the learned appellate court has found that the case of the plaintiff was based on a partnership deed and as per Clause 16 of the partnership deed admittedly Ganesh Saw was not party in the 2026:JHHC:16737 --14-- S.A. No. 100 of 2015 partnership deed, hence any dispute with Ganesh Saw cannot be referred to the arbitration. The learned first appellate court has found that there was complete denial of defendants on sending any dispute to the arbitrator. Learned first appellate court has also found that there was no agreement of work in respect to Dumri Hospital with the defendant No.1, hence question of dispute references to the arbitrator cannot be a reason to the fact and the defendant denied the same. Learned first appellate court has also found that the immovable land is in the name of Defendant No.2 and in view of that nowhere defendant No.1 though being the husband can complain to transfer the land in question. Learned first appellate court has also found that a suit being Title Suit No.18 of 1984 on the basis of same award has already been filed by the plaintiffs which was dismissed in default on 16.02.1985 itself and it was the second attempt of the plaintiff to legalize the award by making it a rule of the Court. Thus, the learned first appellate court has been pleased to dismiss the said appeal by the judgment dated 26.11.2014. The learned trial court and the learned first appellate court have already taken care and decided the said issue which has been framed by Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellants for admitting the second appeal in its right perspective. 14. In the course of argument, Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has not been able to convince the Court that there is any perversity in the judgment of learned trial court and the learned first appellate court. 2026:JHHC:16737 --15-- S.A. No. 100 of 2015 15. It is well known that the second appeal can be admitted only on a law point and for deciding the second appeal the High Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence. Further it was the second attempt by the plaintiff to legalize the said award. There is no law point to admit the present second appeal and the two courts have given the concurrent findings on the issue in question. 16. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that there is no case of interference with the judgments of learned Courts have been made out as there is no law point to admit the present second appeal. Accordingly, this second appeal is hereby dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 10.06.2026 Sangam/