Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 736 (JHR)

Hi-Tech Heritage Ltd. v. Krishna Singh

2025-03-04

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2025
JUDGMENT : [F.A No. 77 of 2023 and F.A. No. 44 of 2023] 1. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in all the cases, the plaintiffs are the same and the property involved in the case is also one and the same. 2. The last purchaser of the property in all the cases is the same. 3. He has submitted that there is a chain of transfer and the last purchaser is the second purchaser of the property. 4. He submits that the property stood recorded in the name of Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram and there was no partition between the two; the share of Jogeshwar Ram devolved upon his death on three brothers namely Balmiki Singh, Tarak Nath Singh and Baij Nath Singh and thus, half of the total property devolved upon the three brothers together and consequently each one of them got one-third in half of the property. 5. He further submits that Algu Ram expired leaving behind his one brother Radha Krishna Singh who had one son namely Rameshwar Singh and Rameshwar Singh transferred the entire share to the extent it related to Algu Ram to the appellants and further Baij Nath Singh son of Jogeshwar Ram transferred his portion of the property to the appellants. Consequently, the appellants got half share of the total property which was belonging to Algu Ram plus one-third share of the remaining half which was originally belonging to Jogeshwar Ram and consequently, the 5/6 th of the property was purchased by the last purchaser. 6. He has further submitted that Algu Ram had expired on 20.01.1996 and his wife Dukhani Devi had expired on 27.07.2001 and there was an unregistered purported Punchanama dated 24.12.1990 executed by Algu Ram in favour of Jogeshwar Ram and one purported power of attorney was also executed by Jogeshwar Ram on 08.11.2000 which was included the entire property of Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram. Jogeshwar Ram expired on 16.11.2000 and his wife had expired sometimes in the month of August, 2000. 7. The learned counsel has submitted that the alleged Punchanama dated 24.12.1990 was exhibited as Exhibit 5 in Title Suit No. 46 of 2012 which is subject matter of consideration in First Appeal No. 77 of 2023. Jogeshwar Ram expired on 16.11.2000 and his wife had expired sometimes in the month of August, 2000. 7. The learned counsel has submitted that the alleged Punchanama dated 24.12.1990 was exhibited as Exhibit 5 in Title Suit No. 46 of 2012 which is subject matter of consideration in First Appeal No. 77 of 2023. He has also submitted that so far as the power of attorney dated 08.11.2000 is concerned, the same was exhibited as Exhibit 3 in the said proceedings. He has submitted that these exhibits are available in other records also. 8. The learned counsel has also submitted that the plaintiffs are claiming by virtue of being power of attorney holder in terms of the document dated 08.11.2000 (Exhibit-3) and claimed the entire property and since the power of attorney was executed by Jogeshwar Ram in relation to the entire property, they excluded their own father and also his three brothers Tarak Nath Singh, Balmiki Singh and Baij Nath Singh. Consequently, there is a conflict between power of attorney holders by virtue of alleged Exhibit-3 and the three brothers of Jogeshwar Ram namely Tarak Nath Singh, Balmiki Singh and Baij Nath Singh. He has also submitted that the plaintiffs in their relief did not challenge the initial sale deed and they only challenged the last sale deed and consequently, the sale deeds in favour of the vendors of the last purchaser through a chain of transfer remained intact. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs (Respondents in First Appeal No. 77 of 2023 and First Appeal 44 of 2023) has submitted that the first transfer was made by Rameshwar Singh who is son of Radha Krishna Singh but he was not at all related with Jogeshwar Ram never devolved upon Radha Krishna Singh and then to Rameshwar Singh and therefore, the transfer has been made by persons completely stranger to Jogeshwar Ram and this finding has been recorded by both the courts. 10. He has submitted that there was no need to separately challenge the sale deeds which were executed by complete strangers to the property. [F. A. No. 156 of 2023] 11. 10. He has submitted that there was no need to separately challenge the sale deeds which were executed by complete strangers to the property. [F. A. No. 156 of 2023] 11. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs in First Appeal No. 77 of 2023 and First Appeal 44 of 2023, who are the appellants in First Appeal No. 156 of 2023 has submitted that the property was transferred by Baij Nath Singh brother of Jogeshwar Ram but Jogeshwar Ram had already given Punchanama in favour of the plaintiffs on 24.12.1990 and the property was also included in the power of attorney dated 08.11.2000 and consequently, Baij Nath Singh had no right to transfer the property. He has submitted that the property was not the ancestral property of Jogeshwar Ram, but it was a self-acquired property and he could have handed over the property through Punchnama or through power of attorney and having executed the Punchnama and power of attorney in favour of the plaintiffs Baij Nath Singh being the brother of Jogeshwar Ram did not have any right to transfer the property and consequently the sale deed executed by Baij Nath Singh was itself null and void. 12. The learned counsel for the parties have also submitted that so far as the First Appeal No. 156 of 2023 is concerned, the same is in relation to the sale deed executed by Baij Nath Singh brother of Jogeshwar Ram and will stand on different footing as compared to the other two first appeals as the other two first appeals relate to the property of Algu Ram. 13. They submit that First Appeal No. 77 of 2023 and First Appeal 44 of 2023 be taken up together at the first instance. [F. A. No. 77 of 2023, F. A. 44 of 2023 and F.A. No. 156 of 2023] 14. Having given the factual background of the cases, both the parties have submitted that they would prepare written notes on the factual aspect and also indicate the point of dispute in the written notes so that the matter can be finally heard on the next date. 15. Post these cases on 07 th April, 2025 to be taken up on 2:15 PM, if the matter does not conclude of 07 th April, 2025, it will continue on08 th April, 2025. 16. 15. Post these cases on 07 th April, 2025 to be taken up on 2:15 PM, if the matter does not conclude of 07 th April, 2025, it will continue on08 th April, 2025. 16. The learned counsel for the parties should file the written notes by 03 rd April, 2025. 17. The learned Court Master is directed to retain the records of these cases received from the concerned court, so the learned counsel may inspect the records.