2026:JHHC:2902 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 64 of 2023 1. Tarkeshwar Singh, aged about 47 years, S/o Late Ganesh Prasad Singh, Aadhar No. 5028 7376 0591, Mob. No. 7099787743 2. Shankar Singh, Aged about 44 years, S/o Late Ganesh Prasad Singh, Aadhar No. 7502 9743 9090 3. Abhaish Kumar Singh, Aged about 30 years, S/o Late Ghanshyam Singh, Aadhar No. 7804 2657 0282 4. Bindo Devi, Aged about 42 years, D/o Late Ganesh Prasad Singh, Aadhar No. 4444 9476 6686 5. Sumitra Devi, Aged about 47 years, D/o Late Ganesh Prasad Singh, Aadhar No. 9959 1873 5075 6. Satbhama Devi, Aged about 35 years, D/o Late Ghanshyam Singh, Aadhar No. 5914 1946 9365 7. Astama Devi, Aged about 27 years, D/o Late Ghanshyam Singh, Aadhar No. 6853 4101 3079 8. Utima Devi, Aged about 31 years, D/o Late Ghanshyam Singh, Aadhar No. 8356 6109 5694 9. Anita Kumari, Aged about 25 years, D/o late Ghanshyam Singh, Aadhar No. 6174 6192 8796 All Resident of Vill.-Jabardaha, P.O.-Fulchi, P.S.-Gandey, Dist.- Giridih, Jharkhand … … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants Versus Smt. Bimla Devi, W/o Nandlal Rawani, Resident of Vill.-Jabardaha, P.O.-Fulchi, P.S.-Gandey, Dist.-Giridih, Jharkhand … … Defendant/Respondent/Respondent --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Nitish Krishna, Advocate For the Respondents : --- 06/04.02.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2023 (decree signed on 19.01.2023) passed by the learned District Judge-III, Giridih in Civil Appeal No. 61 of 2017 affirming the judgment and decree dated 20.05.2017 (decree signed on 03.06.2017) passed by learned Sub-Judge-IV, Giridih in Title Suit No. 90 of 2006. The plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. 3. The suit was filed by the original plaintiff seeking declaration of registered sale-deed no. 216/06 dated 07.01.2006 as illegal, without 2026:JHHC:2902 2 consideration and fraudulent which was executed by the original plaintiff in favour of the defendant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there was no partition with respect to the property and oral partition cannot be acknowledged. He has referred to section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act and has also referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 (Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others) (paragraph 137.5) to submit that it has been held in the said case that a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as statutory recognized mode of partition. The learned counsel submits that therefore, the original plaintiff did not have any right to execute the sale-deed. Paragraph 137 of the judgment reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 (Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others) is as under: “137. Resultantly, we answer the reference as under: 137.1. The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after the amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities. 137.2. The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9-9-2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004. 137.3. Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9-9-2005. 137.4. The statutory fiction of partition created by the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when he was survived by a female heir, of Class I as specified in the Schedule to the 1956 Act or male relative of such female. The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed, the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal. 137.5. In view of the rigour of provisions of the Explanation to Section 6(5) of the 1956 Act, a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the statutory recognised mode of partition effected by a deed of partition duly registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced in 2026:JHHC:2902 3 the same manner as if it had been affected (sic effected) by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly.” 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court finds that the original plaintiff who had executed the registered sale- deed no. 216/06 dated 07.01.2006 in favour of the defendant had challenged the sale-deed alleging it to be illegal, without consideration and fraudulent and sought a declaration that the original plaintiff, without any authority, illegally and without jurisdiction, tainted by fraud and misrepresentation, executed the sale-deed in favour of the defendant which is null and void ab -initio. The plaintiffs also prayed for a confirmation of possession and in the alternative, recovery of possession. 6. This Court finds that the plaintiffs pleaded that the suit land was joint family property and it devolved through survivorship. The original plaintiff was Ganesh Prasad Singh, S/o Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh. It was also pleaded that there was amicable partition of land and plaintiff and his three sons, after partition, got the undivided 1/4th share of the joint family property and were in joint possession of the land. It was also pleaded that the original plaintiff was old and above 80 years of age and was physically handicapped, unable to walk and therefore, his eldest son Ghanshyam Singh became Karta of the joint family. The husband of the defendant was a shrewd person who, with an intention to grab the land of the original plaintiff and his sons, played foul game and brought original plaintiff’s son-in-law in his collusion under allurement and then the defendant’s husband and original plaintiff’s son-in-law on 07.01.2006, when all the original plaintiff’s sons were out of village, managed to bring the original plaintiff to Giridih on false pretext of his treatment and by practicing fraud, got a registered sale-deed dated 07.01.2006 executed in favour of the defendant with respect to 30 decimal of land in plot no. 398 Khata No. 1 which is described in the schedule to the plaint. It was asserted that there was absolutely no transfer, no consideration money was paid and the original plaintiff never agreed to transfer the land to 2026:JHHC:2902 4 the defendant and the original plaintiff was a victim of deep-rooted conspiracy amongst his son-in-law and the defendant. Consequently, the plaintiffs prayed for a declaration that the sale-deed dated 07.01.2006 was null and void. 7. Written statement was filed opposing the prayer and also the allegations made in the plaint. The defendant admitted that the share was undivided ancestral property of the original plaintiff and his sons. It was asserted that the original plaintiff had not only 37 decimals of land in his share but he being the Karta and the manager of the family had full control over the land and thus, he was absolute owner and manager of the joint Hindu family. It was further denied that the original plaintiff was not in a condition to move to the registry office. It was stated that the sons of the original plaintiff were living outside the village and they had no concern with their father nor did they provide any financial help to the original plaintiff and the original plaintiff had a weak financial condition and under such circumstances, the property was sold by the original plaintiff to the defendant upon payment of consideration. 8. The learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration: “1. Is the suit frame as maintainable? 2. Has the plaintiff any cause of action for the suit? 3. Is the suit barred by law of limitation? 4. Is the suit barred by the principle of waiver acquiescence and estoppel? 5. Is the registered sale deed no. 216/2006 dated 07.01.2006 executed by the plaintiff is by way of fraud and mis representation and therefore wrong, uncalled, illegal without consideration hence null and void? 6. Is the plaintiff entitled for confirmation of version over the suit land? 7. To what relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled in the Court and equity by the Court?” 9. While deciding issue no. 5, the learned trial court considered the materials on record and observed that the original plaintiff himself was not produced before the Court for his examination nor any medical document regarding paralysis was filed. The Court also 2026:JHHC:2902 5 recorded that the defendant herself had admitted that on instigation of original plaintiff’s son-in-law, the original plaintiff executed the sale- deed in her favour for which the original plaintiff took consideration amount in presence of the registrar. She admitted that after paying the consideration amount, she was having possession of the land. The learned Court also recorded that the plaintiffs claimed to have filed a criminal case, but no outcome of the case was produced before the court. The learned trial court decided the issue no. 5 against the plaintiffs and also held in paragraph 7 of its judgment that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the registered sale-deed dated 07.01.2006 was executed by the original plaintiff in favour of the defendant under mis-representation and that it was collusive, illegal and without consideration. Ultimately, the learned trial court dismissed the suit. 10. The learned 1st appellate court framed the three points for determination: “(i) Whether the sale deed vide Sale Deed No. 216 dated 07.01.2006 for transfer of the suit land was without any consideration amount and fraudulently been executed in favour of the defendant- respondent? (ii) Whether said sale deed is liable to be canceled? (iii) Is there any need to interfere with the judgment and decree of Ld. Trial Court?” 11. The learned 1st appellate court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the sale-deed in question was without consideration. 12. While deciding the point for determination no. (ii), the learned 1st appellate court held as under: “27…The above are not the only indices for concluding as to whether the alienation was indeed for legal necessity, nor can the enumeration of criterion for establishing legal necessity be copious or even predictable. It must therefore depend on the facts of each case. When, therefore, property is sold in order to payment debt or other legal need of the family obligations, such alienation can be classified as constituting legal necessity. And in my view it is the mandate of law that the properties sold or alienated by father or Karta of the HUF for fulfillment of the family necessity cannot be assailed or 2026:JHHC:2902 6 challenged by other coparceners or co- sharers. And said alienation or sale is valid sale. Now in present case sale deed in question clearly speaks that the land in question has been sold by the original plaintiff Ganesh Prasad Singh for payment of debt, which is falls under the ambit of legal necessities of the family as mentioned in the Article 240 and 241 of the Mulla's Hindu Law. 28. At the same time it is also the settled principle of law that a person who sold in immovable property claiming himself as the absolute owner of the said property or claiming that he has authority to sale out said property cannot bring a suit for cancellation of said sale on the ground that he is not the absolute of that property or he has no authority to sell the said property. Present case has brought by the original plaintiff Ganesh Prasad Singh who himself sold the land in question to the defendant- respondent claiming that he has absolute authority to sell out the said land and for which law clearly barred the said original plaintiff with a pleading that he is not the absolute owner of the land in question. 29. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances discussed above, findings arrived at in the foregoing paragraphs I find and hold that the sale deed vide Sale Deed No. 216 dated 07.01.2006 for transfer of the suit land has willfully and validly been executed by the original plaintiff Ganesh Prasad Singh in favour of the defendant-respondent after receiving the entire consideration amount as mentioned in the said sale deed. It has not fraudulently been obtained by the defendant- respondent and for which said sale deed in question is not liable to be canceled. Accordingly, First and Second point for determination is goes against the Plaintiff- appellants and in favour of the Defendant- Respondent.” 13. Ultimately, the learned 1st appellate court dismissed the appeal by holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the allegations and that the sale-deed was validly executed. 14. This Court finds that both the learned courts upon appreciation of materials on record have negated the plea of the plaintiffs that the sale deed under challenge was fraudulently executed and have held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the allegations. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the learned courts have given concurrent findings on facts that the 2026:JHHC:2902 7 plaintiffs had failed to prove the allegations made in the plaint challenging the legality and validity of the sale deed involved in this case. 16. The judgment relied upon by the appellants passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others (Supra) including paragraph 137(5) as quoted above, does not help the appellants (the plaintiffs) in any manner and does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case as in the instant case it has been held that it is the mandate of law that the properties sold or alienated by father or Karta of the HUF for fulfilment of the family necessity cannot be assailed or challenged by other coparceners or co-sharers and said alienation or sale is valid sale. It has also been recorded that in the present case, sale deed in question clearly speaks that the land in question has been sold by the original plaintiff Ganesh Prasad Singh for payment of debt, which falls under the ambit of legal necessities of the family as mentioned in the Article 240 and 241 of the Mulla's Hindu Law. 17. This 2nd appeal is accordingly dismissed. 18. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 19. Let this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through ‘FAX/email’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of order: 04.02.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:21.02.2026