Jharkhand High Court
M/S Hi-Tech Heritage Ltd vs Krishna Singh on 29 October, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2025:JHHC:32493
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 44 of 2023
1. M/s Hi-Tech Heritage Ltd., a company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at White House-
4D 119, Pana Street, Kolkata, West Bengal, being represented by
Aditya Narayan Mahato, Aged 43 years, S/o Komla Kanta Mahato,
R/o Sukla, P.O.- Rashiknagar, P.S.- Patamda, Jamshedpur, District-
East Singhbhum, Jharkhand
2. Lala Vivek Prasad, aged 51 years, S/o Sri Lala Janardan Prasad, R/o
Chanakyapuri Colony, Old Purulia Road, P.O.- Mango, P.S.-
Azadnagar, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum
3. Rameshwar Singh, aged 56 years, S/o Radha Krishna Singh, R/o
Purana Basti, Sonari, P.O. & P.S.- Sonari, Jamshedpur, District-
East Singhbhum
4. Vijay Kumar Sinha, aged 37 years, S/o Sri N.G.P. Sinha, R/o Qtr.
No.17, Duni Road, Old Baridih, P.O. & P.S.- Sidhgora, Jamshedpur,
District- East Singhbhum
... ... Defendants/Appellants
-Versus-
1. Krishna Singh
2. Sudama Singh,
3. Bhola Singh, all three S/o Tarak Nath Singh, R/o-Village-Dobo,
P.O. and P.S. Chandil, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan
... ... Plaintiff/Respondents
--
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
--
For the Appellants : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Md. Imran Hasan, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. T.N. Ojha, Advocate
--
Reserved on 18.06.2025 Pronounced on 29.10.2025
1. This First Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.09.2022 (Decree sealed and signed on 11.11.2022) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sub- Divisional Court, Chandil in Original Suit No.35 of 2012 (Title Suit No.35 of 2012) whereby and whereunder the suit has been decreed on contest in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and Sale Deed No.1420 dated 03.03.2011 executed by the Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 has been declared as null and void and further, it has been held that Defendant 1 2025:JHHC:32493 No.1 has not acquired any interest over the suit land. Consequently, the defendants are the appellants before this Court.
2. The plaintiffs/respondents had filed Title Suit No.35 of 2012 for the following reliefs:
(i) That it be declared the deed of conveyance (Sale Deed) No.1420 dated 03.03.2011 executed by the Defendant No.2 in favour of the Defendant No.1 is forged, fabricated, without consideration and void ab initio and the Defendant No.1 has not acquired any interest in the suit premises,
(ii) Cost of the suit,
(iii) Any other relief or reliefs.
3. The suit land as mentioned in the Schedule of the plaint is all that piece and parcel of the land measuring area 150 decimals bearing Plot No.1198 (Part) (69 decimals) bounded as North: Plot No.1197, South:
Plot No.1204, East: Plot No.1205 & 1206, West: Part of Plot No.1198, Plot No.1199 (08 decimals) bounded as North: Plot No.1198, South:
Plot No.1200, East: Plot No.1200, West: Plot Nos.1188 & 1200, Plot No.1204 (54 decimals) bounded as North: Plot No.1198, 1205, 1206, South: River, East: Plot No.1272, West: Plot No.1203, and Plot No.1206 (19 decimals) bounded as North: Plot No.1207, South: Plot No.1205 & 1204, East: Plot No.1208, West: Plot No.1198 of Khata No.9 under Mouza- Dobo, Thana No.331, Halka No.2, within P.S.- Chandil, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan under Registry Office- Seraikella.
4. The suit was filed by three plaintiffs namely, Krishna Singh, Sudama Singh and Bhola Singh, all sons of Tarak Nath Singh and the Plaintiff No.1 claimed to be attorney holder of Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3.
5. The Defendant No.1 is Hi-Tech Heritage Ltd. and the Defendant No.2 is Lala Vivek Prasad. The Defendant No.3 is Rameshwar Singh S/o Radha Krishna Singh. The Defendant No.3 has claimed to be original owner of the suit property. Defendant No.4 is Vijay Kumar Sinha who is the Power Attorney holder of the Defendant No.3.
22025:JHHC:32493
6. Case of the Plaintiffs A. Jogeshwar Ram was own uncle of the plaintiffs and Algu Ram was the brother-in-law (Sarhu) of Jogeshwar Ram. Algu Ram, his wife, the plaintiffs and Jogeshwar Ram were residing together under the Managership (Karta) of Jogeshwar Ram. Jogeshwar Ram died issueless on 16.11.2000 and his wife died in August, 2000. Algu Ram died issueless on 20.01.1996 and his wife Dukhni Devi died on 27.07.2001.
B. The suit land alongwith other lands stands recorded jointly in the names of Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram in the Survey Khatian, 1964 and the suit land is their acquired property. Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram both had acquired, owned and possessed an area measuring 5 acres and 10 decimals.
C. Algu Ram had given his right, title, interest, possession, etc. over the suit land and other lands to Jogeshwar Ram by executing a 'Panchnama' and consequently, Jogeshwar Ram became the absolute owner of the entire 5 acres and 10 decimals of lands and accordingly, the land was mutated in the name of Jogeshwar Ram who paid rent to the Government which continued to be paid till 2011.
D. Jogeshwar Ram executed a power of attorney on 08.11.2000 in favour of the Plaintiff No.1 Krishna Singh s/o Tarak Nath Singh authorizing him to manage the entire land including the suit land and to do all things. It has been asserted that since prior to 08.11.2000, the plaintiffs have been looking after the lands with their uncle Jogeshwar Ram and they came in absolute right, title, interest and possession over same continuously. E. The cause of action arose when the plaintiffs received letter dated 09.06.2012 in Demarcation Case No.1/2012-13 at the instance of the Defendant No.1 for demarcation of the suit land said to have been purchased by the Defendant No.1. This was followed by other letters from the circle office. Thereafter, the plaintiffs obtained the certified copy of the Sale Deed No.1420 3 2025:JHHC:32493 dated 03.03.2011 executed by the Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 and Sale Deed No.5889 dated 10.11.2010 executed by the Defendant No.4 in favour of the Defendant No.2. The plaintiffs also obtained certified copy of Power of Attorney vide Deed No. IV 1449 dated 21.10.2010 executed by the Defendant No.3 in favour of the Defendant No.4.
F. On 30.06.2012, Defendant Nos.1 & 2 threatened the plaintiffs to dispossess them from the suit land, when the plaintiffs denied to leave possession over the suit land. The plaintiffs further stated that the Defendant No.2 had no right to execute Sale Deed No.1420 dated 03.03.2011 and hence, the said sale deed is not binding upon the plaintiffs and the Defendant No.3, through his attorney Defendant No.4, had no right to transfer the suit land by sale to the Defendant No.2 and the Defendant No.3 had no right to execute the Power of Attorney in favour of the Defendant No.4.
7. The plaintiffs further stated that the suit property was the self- acquired property of Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram. It was their specific case that -
a. Rameshwar Singh (Defendant No.3), was not the nephew of Algu Ram and that Algu Ram were two brothers, the other one was Jhagru Singh who had also died.
b. The plaintiffs categorically disputed the relationship of Defendant No.3 with Algu Ram or even Jogeshwar Ram; the Defendant No.3 is neither directly, nor indirectly related with Algu Ram or Jogeshwar Ram or any of their family members. c. The Defendant No.3 fraudulently executed power of attorney in favour of Defendant No.4; the Defendant No.3 had no right to execute any power of attorney with respect to the properties of Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram in favour of Defendant No.4. d. Sale Deed No.5889 dated 10.11.2010 was executed by the Defendant No.4 in favour of the Defendant No.2 and then the Sale Deed No.1420 dated 03.03.2011 was executed by the 4 2025:JHHC:32493 Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they had requested the Defendant No.1 several times to write a disclaimer in favour of the plaintiffs, but on 30.06.2012, they refused to do so.
8. Case of the Defendant No.1 I. The suit is not maintainable and is bad for non-joinder and mis-
joinder of necessary parties. All the legal heirs of Balmiki Singh including his sons namely, Awadh Singh, Hiralal Singh and Jitendra Singh and Baijnath Singh are the necessary parties to the suit. Defendant No.3, Rameshwar Singh has been wrongly made as Proforma Defendant, though reliefs have been claimed against him.
II. The plaintiffs have no locus to file the suit, as their father Tarak Nath Singh is still alive and the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the suit property. Algu Ram died issueless leaving behind his brother Radha Krishna Singh who inherited half share of the lands and after his death, his only son namely, Rameshwar Singh, Defendant No.3 came in exclusive possession of the property. The plaintiffs have not made it clear in the plaint as to how and in what manner they have acquired right over the suit property entitling them to institute the suit.
III. The alleged Power of Attorney is illegal, invalid, ineffective, inadmissible in law and collusive. Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram were recorded tenants, but before their death, they were in separate possession of half share each. The plaintiffs never resided with their uncle Jogeshwar Ram jointly under the Managership and Karta of Jogeshwar Ram. The Defendant No.1 further stated that the Power of Attorney dated 08.11.2000 executed by Jogeshwar Ram in favour of Krishna Singh (plaintiff no.1) authorising him to manage the entire land and transfer, if needed and file suits, etc. is forged, fabricated and manufactured. The Defendant No.1 denied that since prior to 08.11.2000, the plaintiffs have been looking after the suit land with their uncle 5 2025:JHHC:32493 and they have been coming in absolute right, title, interest and possession over it continuously till now.
IV. The Defendant No.1 denied that prior to his death, Algu Ram had given his right, title, interest and possession over the suit lands and other lands to Jogeshwar Ram and executed 'Panchnama' in that regard and consequently, Jogeshwar Ram became absolute owner of the said land. The Defendant No.1 stated that the alleged 'Panchnama' is a forged, manufactured, invalid and illegal document which is inadmissible in evidence and by such document, title could not be conferred.
V. Algu Ram was in possession of the half of the land till his death and after his death, it devolved upon his brother Radha Krishna Singh and after his death, it devolved upon Defendant No.3 (Rameshwar Singh) who continued in possession of the same till its transfer to the Defendant No.1.
VI. The Defendant No.1 further stated that the suit land is in exclusive possession of the Defendant No.1 and as such, the allegation against the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 regarding threat of dispossession is incorrect.
VII. The Defendant No.2 purchased the suit land by means of a registered sale deed dated 10.11.2010 on payment of valuable consideration and the possession of the land was delivered to Defendant No.2 and since then, the Defendant No.2 came in possession of the land and got his name mutated and was paying rent to the State. Thereafter, the Defendant No.2 transferred the land to Defendant No.1 on receipt of valuable consideration and delivered the possession to Defendant No.1 and since then, the Defendant No.1 has been in possession of the same on payment of rent in its name.
VIII. The Defendant No.3 had full right to appoint attorney to transfer the suit land and it was denied that the sale deeds were forged and fabricated.
62025:JHHC:32493 IX. The Defendant No.1 denied that no such deed existed which was prior to execution of Deed No.1420 which is subject matter of this case.
9. Case of the Defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4a) The defendant no. 3 claimed to be the owner of the suit property and defendant no. 4 is the power of attorney holder of defendant no. 3. The defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 jointly filed their written statement on 17.01.2013 stating more or less the same facts as stated by the defendant no. 1.
b) They admitted that plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 are own brothers of plaintiff no. 1. However, they stated that the power of attorney executed in favour of the plaintiff no. 1 by other two plaintiffs is illegal, invalid, inadmissible in law and collusive.
c) They admitted that the scheduled land stands recorded in the name of Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram in Survey Khatiyan of 1964 and that the land was their self-acquired property.
d) They also admitted the statement made in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the plaint to the effect that Jogeshwar Ram was own uncle of the plaintiffs and Algu Ram was the brother-in-law (Sarhu) of Jogeshwar Ram; Jogeshwar Ram died issueless on 16.11.2000 and his wife died in the month of August, 2000; Algu Ram died issueless on 20.01.1996 and his wife died on 27.07.2001.
e) They admitted that the total area of the suit land was 150 decimals; Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram possessed total area of 5 acres and 10 decimals including the 150 decimals of the suit land.
f) They stated that Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram were recorded tenant but before their death, they were in separate possession of half share each.
g) They stated that the plaintiffs never resided with their uncle Jogeshwar Ram jointly in the managership and Kartaship of Jogeshwar Ram.
72025:JHHC:32493
h) They further stated that the Power of Attorney dated 08.11.2000 executed in favour of Krishna Singh by Jogeshwar Ram is a false, forged, fabricated, illegal and manufactured document and not at all binding upon them. The plaintiffs have no manner of right, title, interest and possession over any portion of the properties over the said land. They disputed that Algu Ram, prior to his death, had given his right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and his other lands to Jogeshwar Ram and had executed 'Panchnama' in that regard and consequently, Jogeshwar Ram became the absolute owner of the said land. They alleged that 'Panchnama' is forged, manufactured, invalid and illegal document which is inadmissible in evidence and by such document, no title could be conferred.
i) They further stated that Algu Ram was in possession of his half share of the entire land till his death and after his death, it devolved upon his full brother Radha Krishna Singh and after the death of Radha Krishna Singh, the same devolved upon his son Rameshwar Singh (defendant no.3) who was in continuous possession of the same till the transfer.
j) The letters issued by the Anchal Adhikari are in due course of exercise of its jurisdiction.
k) The suit land is in exclusive possession of the Defendant No.1. The Defendant No.2 rightly transferred the suit land in favour of the Defendant No.1 on receipt of valuable consideration money and delivered possession to him over the suit land and since then Defendant No.1 has been coming in possession of the suit land.
l) It has been incorrectly alleged that all the deeds of the suit land executed prior to the execution of Deed No.1420 do not exist at all.
m) After death of Algu Ram, his half share devolved upon his brother Radha Krishna Singh who died leaving behind his son 8 2025:JHHC:32493 Rameshwar Singh, who came in exclusive possession of the half share of the land of Algu Ram.
n) The plaintiffs have no title over the suit land and no cause of action against the defendants.
10. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration:
1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form or not?
2. Have the plaintiff any cause of action for the suit?
3. Is the suit barred by Limitation, estoppel, waiver, acquiescence and by the provisions of Specific Relief Act?
4. Is the suit barred by Transfer of Property and Registration Act?
5. Is the suit barred by non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties?
6. Whether the description of the suit land is incorrect and vague?
7. Is the Defendant No.3 has no right to execute the power of attorney with regard to the suit land?
8. Is the power of attorney executed by defendant is legal, valid, effective and admissible in law?
9. Is the Defendant No.3 is the nephew of the deceased Algu Ram?
10. Have the plaintiffs got the right, title, interest and possession of the suit land or not?
11. Is the Registered Sale Deed No.1420 dated 03.03.2011 executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 legal, valid and operative and lawfully binding on the plaintiffs or not?
12. Whether the Defendant No.4 has any right, title, interest to execute the Sale Deed No.5889 dated 10.11.2010 in favour of Defendant No.2 or not?
13. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get any relief or any other reliefs?9
2025:JHHC:32493
11. The learned trial court considered the materials available on record and recorded its findings in Paragraph Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Judgment which are quoted as under:-
"9. Issue No.1: Is the suit maintainable in its present form or not?
On this point the court is opinion that the suit is maintainable in its present form because court has to find that whether defendants have any right title interest over the property to convey the same through the power of attorney and with sale deed which is challenged in this court by the plaintiff and court has to find the better title between plaintiff and defendant. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and the case is maintainable.
10. Issue No.2: Has the plaintiff any cause of action for the suit?
On this issue, court is of opinion that plaintiff has the cause of action for the suit because it is alleged by the plaintiff that without any right, title & interest the disputed property was transferred to various defendants. Thus, the rights of plaintiff were violated and they have got the cause of action in the suit to defend their right regarding disputed property.
11. Issue No.3: Is the suit barred by Limitation, estoppel, Waiver, acquiescence and by the provisions of Specific Relief Act?
The reply to the issue is that the suit is not barred by Limitation, estoppel, waiver, acquiescence and by the provisions of Specific Relief Act because case is filed within limitation and Rule of estoppel waiver acquiescence and provision of Specific Relief Act did not bar the suit.
12. Issue No. 4: - Is the suit barred by transfer of property and Registration Act?
For the sake of convenience both the issues are dealt together and suit is not barred by Transfer of Property and Indian Registration Act because no provision bars the plaintiff to file this suit.
13. Issue No. 5: - Is the suit barred by non-joinder & mis- joinder of necessary parties?
All the necessary parties joined in the suit for proper adjudication of the case Therefore the suit is not bad for non- joinder & mis-joinder of the parties.10
2025:JHHC:32493
14. Issue No. 6: Whether the description of the suit land is incorrect & vague?
On this issue the court is of opinion that description of land is not incorrect and vague, although it is proper, therefore this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
15. Issue No. 7: - Is the defendant No.3 has no right to execute the power of Attorney with regard to the suit land?
The fate of this issue depends on issue of right, title and interest over the property which is the main issue and this issue is decided against the defendant and defendant has no right, title interest over the suit property. Therefore, it is declared that Defendant No.3 has no right to execute the Power of Attorney with regard to suit land. Hence this issue is decided against defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs.
16. Issue No. 8: - Is the Power of attorney executed by defendant is legal valid effective and admissible in law?
The answer to this issue is that when the issue of right to execute power of Attorney is decided against defendant No. 3 therefore it is quite clear that the power of attorney is executed by defendant No.3 is not legal, valid, effective and it is not admissible in law because defendant No. 3 has no right, title interest over the suit property because it has been proved and admitted in the evidence which is discussed in the issue no 9 that defendant No.3 is not a legal heir of the owner of the suit property.
17. Issue No. 9: - Is the defendant No.3 is the nephew of the deceased Algu Ram?
The defendant No. 3 is not the nephew of Algu Ram because it has been admitted by the defendants evidence oral as well as documentary that he does not belong to late Algu Ram and by discussion it should be proved that the alleged nephew Rameshwar Ram defendant No. 3 is not the nephew of Late Algu Ram because in the oral evidence of D.W.-5 Vijay Kumar Sinha in Pata 31 of his cross-examination specifically stated that when I have taken power of Attorney from Rameshwar Singh regarding disputed land comprising of Area 2 Acre 50 Dec. at that time I was knowing the fact that Rameshwar is not nephew of Algu Ram. Similarly in para 35 of cross-examination of D.W.-5 specifically stated that Radhkrishan singh and Rameshwar never occupied the disputed land.
If we peruse the Ext.-9 which is sale deed executed by Ramkeshwar Singh who is D.W.- 4 and supported the case of defendant, It is evident from that particular sale deed that the Rameshwar Singh who is main defendant and executed Power of 11 2025:JHHC:32493 Attorney in favour of other defendants, has been made attesting witness and his father's name has been mentioned as Radha Krishan Singh and if we peruse the last page of that sale deed it is evident that the Radha Krishan Singh's father was Ramvriksh Singh which means Ramkeshwar and Radha Krishan Singh were real brothers and the statement of Ram Keshwar Singh that Radha Krishan Singh father was Vriksh Singh has been falsified which means Ramkeshwar and Rameshwar have relation of uncle and nephew and they have no relation with the real owner Algu Ram and Jageshwar Ram in this regard it is pertinent to note that the death certificate of Late Alguram which is Ext.-6 shows that the father of Alguram was Devnath Singh on the other side it has been admitted by the defendant No.3 Rameshwar Singh in para-21 of his cross-examination as well as in para 21, of cross examination of D.W.-4 Ramkeshwar Singh admitted the voter list of 1971 in which the father of Radha Krishn Singh is mentioned as Vriksh Singh which shows that Alguram and Radha Krishna are not brothers at all as well as claim of defendant that he is the nephew of late Alguram has been falsified and therefore this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant because after due discussion it is crystal clear that Rameshwar Singh defendant No. 3, who executed Power of Attorney concerning disputed land is not nephew of the real owner of the property. Hence all the transactions (i.e. sale deeds) based on such Power of attorney are declared null and void along with power of Attorney executed by the defendant No. 3 Rameshwar Singh.
18. Issue No. 10: - Have the plaintiff got the right, title, interest and possession of the suit land or not?
Before discussing this issue, we should understand that in a civil case there is no principle of strict proof but the issues are decided on the basis of preponderance of probability. In this case this rule be apply because here the court has to decided better title between plaintiff and defendant for which we have to go through the oral as well as documentary evidences adduced by the both the parties. Firstly, we will deal with the oral evidence of plaintiff and in their oral evidence they have fully supported the case even the defendant also somehow supported the case of plaintiff. If we go through evidence of P. W.-2 Rameshwar Singh who is main defendant in para 22 of his cross-examination has stated that Alguram and Jogeshwar Ram were living on the disputed land and Krishna who is one of the plaintiffs is residing in the same house and were brought by the Jageshwar Ram. In para-25 of his cross-examination he stated that he has all the documents like Khatiyan and receipt but he has to find for producing in the court but he never produced any document related with the disputed land concerning Alguram although ample time at least four years has been given to the Rameshwar 12 2025:JHHC:32493 Singh because he has adduced the evidence in year 2018. In para 27 he stated that through Power of Attorney I have made Vijay Sinha as the owner of the land. He also stated in para 32 that he do not know the area of the plots in disputed land and in para 36 he specifically stated that he has gone to the disputed land in year 1980 to 85 but after year 1985 1 have stopped farming over the land but most important fact stated by him that Krishna and his brother was doing agriculture since 1985 from which it is evident that the plaintiffs were having possession of the land since 1985 and suddenly in year 2010 defendant No. 3 Rameshwar Singh appears and executed Power of Attorney regarding disputed land without any single piece of paper in his hand till date. It has been already discussed that Rameshwar Singh is not nephew of late Algu Ram so that the Power of Attorney executed by him is totally illegal and without any force of law. On the other side several documents have been produced by the plaintiff first one is the document (The original copy is attached in original suit No. 46 of 2012) which is the punchnama by which late Algu Ram has given the Power of Attorney to Late Jogeshwar Ram by which he had given the permissive possession and right to enjoyment of disputed land to late Jogeshwar Ram similarly Late Jogeshwar Ram also executed Power of Attorney in name of Sri Krishan Kumar who is the plaintiff in the case which is marked as Ext.-8 (certified copy of the same) and the original copy of which is attached in (The original copy is attached in original suit No. 46 of 2012). Although it is objected by the defendant but the opinion of this court is that the society should respect the wishes of the dead persons in this case it has come on record that after executing this Power of Attorney the executor Algu Ram gone to his native village Jogdishpur and never come back and died there, which shows that his last wish was that to give the land to the his friend, relative late Jogeshwar Ram, so this Power of Attorney will be treated as his last wish or as a unregistered will. On the other hand, the Rameshwar Ram has not produced any single chit of paper or document showing that he is any way related to Late Algu Ram. Although his claim has been falsified by the Ext. 9 in which it has been evident that Rameshwar Singh is nephew of Ram Keshwar Singh because here the father of Rameshwar Singh and father of Ram Keshwar Singh are same who is Ramvirksh Singh and Ram Keshwar Singh admitted and specifically stated that Radha Krishna Singh father is Vriksh Singh. On the other side there are several documents which have been produced by the plaintiff regarding relation between plaintiff and Late Jogeshwar Singh. All the documents like Revenue receipts which are marked as Exts. 2, 2/1, 2/2, 2/3 & 2/4 are the older Revenue Receipts till year 2010 before the dispute arises. They have also produced Voter I/D Card of Late Jogeshwar Ram which is marked as Ext.-5 and Voter I/D Card of his late wife Parvati Devi which is marked as Ext.-5 which 13 2025:JHHC:32493 shows that every important document related with the identity of his uncle was in the custody of the plaintiffs and they were taking care of late Jogeshwar Ram and his wife. Similarly, they have also produced the death certificates of late Algu Ram (Ext. 6) and his wife (Ext. 6/1) which also shows that they were taking care of late Algu Ram also the most important document is Ext.4 which is Election Card in which the name of plaintiff Krishna Singh & Sudama Singh appears with late Jogeshwar Singh which shows the relationship between plaintiffs and the late Jogeshwar Ram. Plaintiffs have also produced the death certificates of Jogeshwar Ram which is the year 2000 and whose custody shows that late Jogeshwar Ram was closely related with the plaintiffs and the custody of these documents shows the relationship between plaintiff and the late Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram who were the real owner of the land and the plaintiffs were taking care of the the late Algu Ram Jogeshwar Ram as well as their properties which are disputed in the suit. Similarly, Ext.7 shows the genealogy of late Algu Ram issued by office of Circle office of Jagdishpur where Algu Ram died with his wife which shows that Algu Ram has only one brother Jhagru Singh and there is no name of Radha Krishan Singh as a brother of late Algu Ram which falsify the case of defendant that Rameshwar Singh is nephew of late Algu Ram due to which the whole claim of Rameshwar Singh fails.
On the other side if we see the documents of the defendant it transpires that in year 2010 suddenly one man Rameshwar Singh appears who is defendant No. 3 execute a Power of Attorney regarding land related with late Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram without single chit of paper regarding right, title, ownership of disputed land and Power of attorney holder who are other defendants transfer these disputed land to each other and after this collusive acts of transfer they again sold the property to defendant High Tech Company and it is admitted by the one of the defendant that he knows that the Executor of Power of Attorney defendant No. 3 Rameshwar Singh is not the nephew of late Algu Ram which shows the conduct and intent of the parties, that somehow they were creating the documents to grab the disputed land. Similarly, no single piece of document produced by the defendant which shows any how they are related with the reals owners in brief we can say that without any authority Rameshwar Singh by executing Power of Attorney making the power of Attorney holder as owner which is corroborated by the statement of the Rameshwar Singh himself. If these kind of transactions are allowed in civilized society then it will make chaos in the society because any one who is not related in any way with property became the executor of Power of Attorney without any authority or document can transfer it to any one and create false documents and grab the properties of others that could not be tolerated in civilized society and which 14 2025:JHHC:32493 is against the rule of law of the land because if anybody has right then he has to come to the court for exercising his right and here the defendants have fabricated the documents to grab the lands.
If we weigh the balance between plaintiff and defendant it has come on record that the plaintiff along with their ancestors late Jageshwar ram and late Algu Ram were enjoying the properties since year 1980 and which is also supported by the main defendant Rameshwar Singh in para 36 of his cross- examination and it is quite clear that defendant Rameshwar Singh is not nephew of Late Algu Ram so that he has no legal right to transfer the disputed property and the better title has been declared in favour of plaintiff and section 110 of Indian evidence act also supports the plaintiff because it supports the possession therefore applying the principle of preponderance of probability the better title goes in favour of plaintiffs.
Due to above discussion and consideration this cardinal issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs & against the defendant.
19. Issue No. 11: Is the Registered Sale deed No. 1420 dated 03/03/2011 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 legal valid and operative and lawfully binding on the plaintiff or not?
As we know that the defendant has no right over the suit property therefore, they no right, title & interest to convey the suit property to anybody therefore Registered sale deed no. 1420 dated 03/03/2011 is declared null and void and it is not legally binding on plaintiffs.
20. Issue No. 12: Whether the defendant No. 4 has any right, title interest to execute the sale deed No. 5889 dated 10/11.2010 in favour of defendant No.2 or not?
It is quite clear that the cardinal issue of right title and interest is decided in favour of plaintiff and it is decided against the defendants. Clearly shows that defendants have no right, title & interest over the property therefore they cannot transfer the land to anybody because for valid transfer they should be real owner who has to right to transfer it. Here it has been proved that defendants have no right title interest over the property therefore they cannot transfer the disputed land and therefore the sale deed No.5889 dated 10/11/2010 in favour of defendant No. 2 is declared null and void.
21. Issue No. 13: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get any relief or any other reliefs?15
2025:JHHC:32493 All above issues decided in the favour of plaintiff and there is no need to grant any further relief to the plaintiff, therefore, this issue is decided against the plaintiff."
12. The learned trial court decided the Issue Nos. (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) in favour of the plaintiffs; Issue Nos. (6), (7), (10), (11) and (12) in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants; Issue No. (8) and (9) against the Defendant No.3 and decided Issue No. (13) against the plaintiffs.
With regard to Issue No.4, the learned trial court held that the suit is not barred by the provision of Specific Relief Act and Indian Registration Act because no provision bars the plaintiffs to file the suit. With respect to Issue No.5, the learned trial court was of the view that all the necessary parties were joined in the suit and therefore, the suit was not bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties and decided this issue in favour of the plaintiffs. With regard to Issue No.6, the learned trial court recorded that the description of the land is not incorrect and vague, although it is proper and therefore decided this issue in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. With regard to Issue No.7, the learned trial court recorded that the Defendant No.3 has no right to execute the Power of Attorney with regard to the suit land and decided the Issue No.7 against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs. With respect to Issue No.8, the learned trial court recorded that the power of attorney executed by Defendant No.3 is not legal, valid, effective and it is not admissible in law because defendant No. 3 has no right, title interest over the suit property and decided the Issue No.8 against the defendants. With regard to Issue No.9, the learned trial court recorded that it has been admitted by the defendants' evidence, oral as well as documentary, that Defendant No.3 does not belong to Late Algu Ram and held that Defendant No.3 is not the nephew of Algu Ram and further held that Rameshwar Singh- defendant No. 3, who executed Power of Attorney concerning disputed land is not nephew of the real owner of the property and hence all the transactions (i.e. sale deeds) based on such Power of attorney are declared null and void alongwith power of Attorney executed by the 16 2025:JHHC:32493 defendant No.3 Rameshwar Singh. Accordingly, the learned trial court decided this issue in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. While considering Issue No.10, the learned trial court observed that several documents were produced by the plaintiffs including the 'Panchnama' by which Late Algu Ram had given the power of attorney to Late Jogeshwar Ram whereby Algu Ram had given permissive possession and right to enjoy the disputed land to Late Jogeshwar Ram. Similarly, Late Jogeshwar Ram also executed power of attorney in the name of Krishna Singh who was the plaintiff of the case. The learned trial court further recorded that although the said document was objected by the defendants, but it was the opinion of the learned trial court that society should respect the wishes of dead person. In this case, it has come on record that after executing the power of attorney, the executor Algu Ram had gone to his native village and never came back and died there which showed that his last wish was to give the land to his friend and relative Late Jogeshwar Ram, so the power of attorney is to be treated as his last wish or as an unregistered will and further observed that on the other hand, Rameshwar Ram had not produced any single chit of paper or documents showing that he was in any way related to Late Algu Ram. The learned court also observed that the claim of Rameshwar Singh was falsified by Exhibit-9 and on the basis of Exhibit-9, the learned trial court came to a conclusion that Rameshwar Singh was the nephew of Ramkeshwar Singh because the father of Rameshwar Singh and Radha Krishna Singh were same namely, Vriksh Singh and Ramkeshwar Singh admitted and specifically stated that Radha Krishna Singh's father was Vriksh Singh. The learned trial court ultimately discussed some more materials including Exhibit-7 which was the alleged genealogy of Late Algu Ram said to have been issued by the Circle Office of Jagdishpur where Algu Ram had died which showed that he had only one brother namely, Jhagru Singh and there was no name of Radha Krishna Singh as the brother of Late Algu Ram which according to the learned trial court falsified the case of the defendants that Rameshwar Singh is nephew of 17 2025:JHHC:32493 Late Algu Ram due to which the learned trial court observed that the entire case of Rameshwar Singh fails.
13. The learned trial court considered the case of the respective parties and discussed the materials and ultimately by referring to Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act held that the plaintiffs had better title which was also supported by the fact that the plaintiffs were in the possession of the suit property. The learned trial court decided the Issue No.10 in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
14. As a sequel to the findings recorded, the learned trial court decided Issue No.11 in favour of the plaintiffs by holding that the registered Sale Deed No.1420 dated 03.03.2011 is declared as null and void and not legally binding upon the plaintiffs. So far as Issue No.12 is concerned, the learned trial court held that the Defendant No.4 did not have any right, title and interest to execute the Sale Deed No.5889 dated 10.11.2010 in favour of the Defendant No.2 and also declared Sale Deed No.5889 dated 10.11.2010 executed in favour of Defendant No.2 as null and void and ultimately, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the learned trial court decreed the suit.
15. Arguments on behalf of the appellants I. There is a chain of transfer and the last purchaser (defendant no.1) is the second purchaser of the property. The appellant no.2 purchased the land-in-question from one Rameshwar Singh, nephew of Late Algu Ram, who was holding 2.55 acres of land, out of the total 5.1 acres of land, jointly held by Late Algu Ram and Late Jogeshwar Ram, both brothers-in-law.
II. The plaintiffs filed the suit claiming themselves to be the joint owners of the entire 5.1 acres of land. They claimed that through one purported "Panchnama" issued on 24.12.1990 by Late Algu Ram in favour of Late Jogeshwar Ram, the right, title and interest with regard to 2.55 acres of land of Late Algu Ram vested in favour of the plaintiffs' uncle Jogeshwar Ram and through a purported Power of Attorney executed by Late Jogeshwar Ram on 08.11.2000, the right, title and interest with regard to 2.55 acres of said land vested in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. III. 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 18 2025:JHHC:32493 thus, half of the total property devolved upon the three brothers together and consequently each one of them got one-third in ½ of the property.
IV. Algu Ram had expired on 20.01.1996 and his wife Dukhni Devi had expired on 27.07.2001 and there was an unregistered purported 'Panchnama' 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 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.
V. 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 appellant no.2 and appellant no. 2 transferred it to the appellant no.1 . Baij Nath Singh son of Jogeshwar Ram transferred his portion of the property to the appellant no.1. Consequently, the appellant no.1 got ½ share of the total property which was belonging to Algu Ram plus 1/3rd share of the remaining half which was originally belonging to Jogeshwar Ram and consequently, 5/6th of the property was purchased by the last purchaser.
VI. The learned counsel further submitted that the alleged 'Panchnama' dated 24.12.1990 and also the power of attorney dated 08.11.2000 are of no consequence.
VII. The learned counsel also submitted that the plaintiffs are claiming by virtue of being power of attorney holder in terms of the document dated 08.11.2000 and they claimed the entire property and since the power of attorney was executed by Jogeshwar Ram in favour of plaintiff no.1 in relation to the entire property, three brothers of Jogeshwar Ram namely, Tarak Nath Singh, Balmiki Singh and Baij Nath Singh were excluded. Consequently, there is a conflict between power of attorney holder and the three brothers of Jogeshwar Ram namely, Tarak Nath Singh, Balmiki Singh and Baij Nath Singh. He 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 deed in favour of the vendor of the last purchaser through a chain of transfer remained intact. VIII. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the points for determination in the present case would be almost the same as the main issues which were framed by the learned trial court. In addition, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that following two issues also arise for consideration: -
192025:JHHC:32493 Whether the learned trial court could have set aside the registered Sale Deed No.1420 dated 03.03.2011 which was subject matter of the suit in absence of any challenge to the registered Sale Deed No.5889 dated 10.11.2010?
Whether the registered Sale Deed No.5889 dated 10.11.2010 could have been declared to be null and void when there was no specific challenge in the prayer portion of the suit?
IX. It is submitted that the learned trial court absurdly observed the following: -
"18... Although it is objected by the defendant but the opinion of this court is that the society should respect the wishes of the dead persons in this case it has come on record that after executing this Power of Attorney the executor Algu Ram gone to his native village Jogdishpur and never come back and died there, which shows that his last wish was that to give the land to the his friend, relative late Jogeshwar Ram, so this Power of Attorney will be treated as his last wish or as a unregistered will."
X. The learned trial court ignored that if at all 'Panchnama' was a last wish, the procedures specified under Succession Act were to be followed for claiming any right, title and interest over the property of late Algu Ram.
XI. Further despite the fact that the respondents claimed that the 'Panchnama' was a power of attorney, the learned trial court on the contrary declared that as last wish of Late Algu Ram meaning a "Will", whereas the said document neither consists thumb impression, nor signature of Late Algu Ram.
XII. The learned trial court ignored the trite law that the suit was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, inasmuch as, all the legal heirs of Late Jogeshwar Ram i.e., Late Balmiki Singh including his sons namely, Awadh Singh, Hiralal Singh and Jitendra Singh, Tarak Singh [father of the plaintiffs], and Baijnath Singh were necessary parties to the suit. Late Tarak Singh, Late Balmiki Singh and Baijnath Singh all are brothers of Late Jogeshwar Singh [died issueless] and they were necessary parties in this suit, even though the respondents claimed right, title and interest in the land of Late Algu Ram and not of Late Jogeshwar Ram under the purported power of attorney of Late Jogeshwar Ram.
XIII. Algu Ram died issueless living behind his brother Radha Krishna Singh, who inherited the ½ of the lands of Khata No.9, Mouza 20 2025:JHHC:32493 Dobo and after his death his only son and legal heir Rameshwar Singh [Defendant No.3] inherited the same and came in exclusive possession. However, learned trial court most erroneously declared him not related to Late Algu Ram on the basis of forged documents (Vanshavali) filed by the plaintiffs which were not verified by the learned trial court, inasmuch as, how could the Circle Officer of Bihar State issue a certificate for residents of Jharkhand. The learned trial court messed up the whole issue and did not properly appreciate the evidences on record.
XIV. The plaintiffs in their sinister design tried to mislead the learned trial court not only with regard to the relationship of Late Algu Ram with his nephew Rameshwar Singh, but also forged the documents of their own uncle Jogeshwar Ram by filing the Election ID Card of Late Jogeshwar Ram, Khatian and his death certificate in which his father's name was Late Devnath (as if Jogeshwar Ram was the own brother of Late Algu Ram) which is actually the name of the father of Late Algu Ram only and as such all the three documents were not cross verified by the learned trial court and the same were taken on face value without considering the oral evidences on record . Even the purported Power of Attorney dated 08.11.2000 has mentioned the name of the father of Late Jogeshwar Ram as Devnath Singh.
XV. It is apparent from perusal of the impugned judgement that the learned trial court has completely messed up different identities by first declaring Rameshwar Singh as the nephew of Ram Keshwar Singh and then declared them as brothers with father's name as Rambriksh Singh. The learned trial court further erred in declaring the father's name of Defendant No.3, Rameshwar Singh as Briksh Singh. The learned trial court was completely confused as to the identity of Rambriksh Singh and Briksh Singh, whether they represent the same person or two different persons. XVI. The learned trial court completely ignored the following genealogical chart which emerged after conclusion of the proceedings before the learned trial court that Devnath, Bhavnath and Rambriksh were three brothers having following descendants:
a. Devnath had two sons Algu Ram and Radhakrishna Singh; Radhakrishna Singh has one son Rameshwar Singh [Defendant No.3/ Appellant No.3] b. Bhavnath had two sons namely, Jhagru and Narayan Singh; and c. Rambriksha had two sons - Ramkeshwar and Ramjanam.
XVII. Both the documents i.e., purported 'Panchnama' dated 24.12.1990 and purported Power of Attorney dated 08.11.2000 are forged documents as admitted by the Plaintiffs themselves in their cross 21 2025:JHHC:32493 examination. The Plaintiff No.1 Krishna Singh who was examined as P.W.-7 in his cross-examination at Para 5 stated the following:
English Translation:
"In the said alleged Panchnama no thumb impression or signature of Algu Ram's wife's was taken. And even Algu Ram's was not taken (thumb impression or signature). At that time there was no Mukhiya, Pradhan or Member so no one was called. Inasmuch as my house is on the main road so whoever came for drinking water was asked to sign. Did not try to get any registered document before Registry Office."
XVIII. On perusal of the said document called 'Panchnama', it is also apparent that the said document was authored by one Ram Janm Singh and signed by him only with signatures of some witnesses Girija Singh, Srikant Singh, Ramnaresh Singh, Satyanarayan Singh and one Paras Mahato.
XIX. When the purported Power of Attorney dated 08.11.2000 is examined it is found that there are two witnesses one is Sudama Singh, Plaintiff No.2 himself and another one Girija Singh who claims to have also signed as witness in the purported 'Panchnama'. In any case the said Power of Attorney dated 08.11.2000 even if it is assumed, without admitting, that it is genuine, the same got lapsed after the death of late Jogeshwar Ram on 16.11.2000.
XX. The plaintiffs exhibited three documents of Late Jogeshwar Ram -
first, Voter ID Card (Ext-5); second, Electoral Card (Nirvachan Card)- Ext 4; and third, Death Certificate - Ext- 6/2 respectively. All three documents referred above appear to be forged inasmuch as the father's name of Late Jogeshwar Ram has been mentioned as Late Devnath Singh which is false inasmuch as Devnath Singh was the father of late Algu Ram as reflected in his death certificate being Exhibit-6.
XXI. Plaintiff No.2 - Sudama Singh who was examined as P.W. -1 stated the following at Paragraphs 16 and 17 of his cross-examination :
English Translation:
"16. Jogeshwar had four brothers. Jogeshwar, Balmiki, Taraknath and Baijnath. Sukhari Singh was their father.
17. Algu's father's name was Devnath."
XXII. Baijnath Singh, the youngest brother of late Jogeshwar Singh in his deposition as D.W. - 3 categorically stated his father's name as Late Sukhari Singh.
222025:JHHC:32493 XXIII. It is apparent that all the three documents related to late Jogeshwar Ram placed by the Plaintiffs are forged and it appears that they had earlier planned to establish that both late Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram were own brothers in their quest to establish that Rameshwar Singh is not the own nephew of Late Algu Ram.
XXIV. Further, Plaintiff No.-1, Krishna Singh was examined as P.W. 7 and in paragraphs 3 and 5 of his cross-examination, he admitted the same Genealogy and clearly admitted that no Sale Deed, Gift or Will was ever prepared in the names of the Plaintiffs with respect to shares of properties of late Jogeshwar Ram and late Algu Ram. P.W. 7 further admitted that he had no knowledge that late Algu Ram had how many brothers.
XXV. The Plaintiffs brought a forged Genealogy of late Algu Ram (Exhibit-7) from Circle office of Jagdishpur, Ara, Bihar and falsely claimed that one Jhagru Singh was the brother of late Algu Ram despite the fact that all the three Plaintiffs are distant relatives of Algu Ram as Algu Ram is admittedly brother-in-law of late Jogeshwar Ram.
XXVI. It is trite that the plaintiffs could succeed in a suit for declaration of title and possession on the strength of their own title and hence, the onus was on them to prove their case by leading sufficient / cogent evidence for their claim on the said land admeasuring 5.1 acres. XXVII. The Plaintiff No.1 in his cross examination as P.W. - 7 deposed at paragraph 5 as under:
English Translation:-
"5. My brother and I both applied for the death certificates of Algu Ram and his wife after few days of their death. We applied for those certificates for claiming their properties. Algu Ram or his wife had not executed any document of transfer of their properties in favour of me or my brothers. No Khatian/ Transfer Document, Gift Deed or NOC had been executed in favour of Jogeshwar Ram by Algu Ram or his wife of their portion of the impugned property being Plot No.9. I have no knowledge whether there was any name transfer of the property of the Algu Ram in favour of Jogeshwar Ram. We, neither I nor Sudama nor Bhola Nath have filed any application for name transfer of the properties of Algu Ram or Jogeshwar Ram. Jogeshwar Ram has not executed any documents of transfer, gift deed or will in favour of us, the three brothers."
XXVIII. The Plaintiffs produced three forged documents to claim that Rameshwar Singh was not the nephew of late Algu Ram - the first one is Ext-9 which is a Sale Deed executed by Ramkeshwar Singh 23 2025:JHHC:32493 son of Ram Vriksh Singh; second one is an Electoral List, Ext- 4 showing alien names; and the third one is a purported Genealogy purportedly of late Algu Ram, Ext - 7 procured admittedly by Plaintiff No.2, Sudama Singh.
It is submitted that the Plaintiffs referred the last page of that Sale Deed (exhibit-9) which includes a document from Revenue and Land Reforms Dept., Bihar, Record of Rights and mentions a name "Rani Krishna Singh", father's name "Rambriksh Singh" and claimed that Radha Krishna Singh was the son of Rambriksh Singh [Rambriksh Singh is also the father of Ramkeshwar Singh] and hence Radha Krishna Singh and Ramkeshwar Singh are own brothers and sons of Rambriksh Singh and they had no connection/relationship with late Algu Ram.
The learned counsel submitted that the said document was submitted by the Plaintiffs and the defendants have no knowledge that how a page of record of rights got included in the Sale Deed (exhibit-9).
XXIX. It is submitted that if Late Algu Ram had no relation with Ramkeshwar Singh and Rameshwar Singh (defendant no.3), then how his name appears in the Sale Deed as cousin brother of Ramkeshwar Singh where Rameshwar Singh is also a witness? XXX. Further, the second document is Electoral/ Voter List which was marked as Exhibit-4. That Electoral/ Voter List mentions two Radha Krishna Singh, one is S/o Briksh Singh and another is son of Ramgovind Singh. In their sinister design to declare Rameshwar Singh not related to Algu Ram the Plaintiffs have declared four persons as father of Radha Krishna Singh - Rambriksh Singh, Briksh Singh, Ramgovind Singh and the real one Devnath Singh. XXXI. The third document is the Genealogy which was marked Exhibit-7 wherein the Plaintiffs have tried to prove that Jhagru Singh was the brother of Algu Ram and Radha Krishna Singh had no relation with Algu Ram.
XXXII. It is the case of the appellants that there are five witnesses who have stated categorically that late Algu Ram was the brother of Radha Krishna Singh and their father's name was Devnath Singh. They are P.W. -2 namely, Barha Majhi at para 20 of his cross examination; P.W. 6 - Paras Mahato, own father-in-law of Plaintiff No.1 namely, Krishna Singh at para 5 of his cross examination; D.W. 2 - Rameshwar Singh at para 3 of his statement on oath; D.W. 3 - Baijnath Singh, s/o Sukhari Singh at para 9 of his statement on oath; and D.W. 4 - Ramkeshwar Singh at para 4 of his Statement on oath. XXXIII. Barha Majhi, P.W. - 2 at para 20 of the Cross Examination before the learned trial court has deposed the following:-
English Translation:-24
2025:JHHC:32493 "20. Probably the marriage of Rameshwar was solemnize at Sapra village (meaning his in-laws house was at Sapra village) and impugned land was of Algu Ram and after his death his property was used by Radha Krishna Singh and after his death his son Rameshwar Singh had been using and enjoying and Jogeshwar Ram didn't have any possession of that property."
XXXIV. It is submitted that P.W. - 2 has not been cross examined with respect to the documents - Ext-9, Ext-7 and Ext-4 nor the learned trial court bothered to refer those documents and cross examine P.W. 2. Hence the impugned judgment to the extent of declaring Rameshwar Singh as not related to late Algu Ram is invalid and illegal being not based on verification of documents or correct facts and whatever had been claimed by the Plaintiffs fraudulently were admitted as sacrosanct.
XXXV. Paras Mahato - P.W. - 6 at para 5 of his cross examination has deposed as under:
English Translation:-
"5. Radha Krishna was the brother of Algu Ram and Rameshwar Singh is the son of same Radha Krishna."
XXXVI. It is submitted that P.W. 6 also has not been cross examined with respect to the documents Ext -9, Ext-7 and Ext- 4 nor the learned trial court bothered to refer those documents and cross examine P.W. - 6. Hence the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court to the extent of declaring Rameshwar Singh as not related to late Algu Ram is invalid and illegal being not based on verification of documents or correct facts and whatever had been claimed by the Plaintiffs fraudulently were admitted as sacrosanct. XXXVII. Rameshwar Singh, D.W. -2 in his deposition at paragraphs 3 and 12 to 14 has stated the following :-
English Translation:-
"3. That, impugned land was of my elder father Algu Ram. Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram jointly procured 15 Bigha and 06 Kattha at Dobo Mauja.
12. That, the Plaintiffs' claim that Algu Ram in his life time through the alleged "Panchnama" conferred the land to Jogeshawar Ram is utterly false. The said "Panchnama" submitted by the Plaintiffs is a forged document which was created for making false claim on the property of Algu Ram.25
2025:JHHC:32493
13. That, the claim of the Plaintiffs that my father was not the brother of Algu Ram rather Jhagru Ram was the brother of Algu Ram, is utterly false.
14. That the Plaintiffs have purportedly filed some purported Genealogy which is equally false and the same have been prepared by fraud and in connivance with the officials of Bloc to mislead the court."
XXXVIII. Further, in his cross-examination at paragraphs 20 and 26, D.W. 2 deposed the following: -
English Translation:-
"20. I know Jhagru Singh his father's name is Bhavnath Singh."
"26. I have not seen the Genealogy."
XXXIX. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is apparent that D.W. 2 was vaguely cross examined on the Ext - 4, the electoral/ voter list in which he has not changed his statement on oath or contradicted any of his statements rather, at one point at para 21 he says that the said voter list is not correct. However, this witness was not cross examined with respect to Ext-9, the Sale Deed of Ramkeshwar Singh in which his signature appears as witness and also with respect to Exhibit 7 - Genealogy.
XL. However, it is apparent by the statement of Rameshwar Singh (D.W-2) at para 14 of his deposition and para 26 of his cross examination-in-chief, that he knew Jhagru Singh, whose father's name was Bhavnath Singh and that he had not seen the Genealogy. Even the learned trial court did not bother to refer those two documents and cross examination of Rameshwar Singh (D.W. -2), hence the impugned judgment to the extent of declaring Rameshwar Singh (D.W-2 / Defendant no.3) as not related to late Algu Ram is invalid and illegal being not based on verification of documents or correct facts and whatever had been claimed by the Plaintiffs fraudulently were admitted as sacrosanct. XLI. Baijnath Singh, D.W. - 3 has, inter alia, stated as follows: -
English Translation:-
"9. That, Algu Ram had his own only one brother Radha Krishna Singh. The said Radha Krishna has left his son as his only successor.
13. That Algu Ram after mutual division possessed his land separately and after his death his wife succeeded the said property and she possessed that.
262025:JHHC:32493
14. That, After the death of Dukhni Devi, Algu Ram's part of the land got vested in Ram Krishna. After the death of Radha Krishna the said land got vested with his only son Rameshwar Singh and he possessed the same thereafter."
XLII. In his cross examination, D.W. 3 stated in paragraph 26 as under:
English Translation:-
"26. We used to come and go to Jagdishpur and knew the people there. Knew Rambriksh Singh of that place who had two sons and Devnath had two sons Radha Krishna and Algu Ram."
Further, D.W-3 at paragraph 9 of his deposition stated as follows:
English Translation:-
"9. That, Algu Ram had only one own full brother Radha Krishna and father of both was Devnath Singh whom I had seen and used to go to his house and he used to come to my house and I used to visit his house."
XLIII. It is further submitted that Baijnath Singh i.e., D.W. 3 was not cross examined with reference to the Electoral/Voter list - Exhibit-4, Sale Deed of Ramkeshwar Singh - Exhibit- 9 and Genealogy - Exhibit- 7 completely and the learned trial court completely ignored the deposition and cross examination of D.W. -3 who was own uncle of Plaintiffs and own brother of late Jogeshwar Ram for reasons unknown. This was the most important issue before the learned trial court, inasmuch as, the Uncle and Nephews were making contradictory statements about the identity of Rameshwar Singh. XLIV. It is further submitted that the learned trial court even did not bother to refer those three documents i.e., Electoral/Voter list - Exhibit-4, Sale Deed of Ramkeshwar Singh - Exhibit- 9 and Genealogy - Exhibit- 7 and cross examine Baijnath Singh, D.W. - 3 with respect to those in the present suit and hence the Order impugned to the extent of declaring Rameshwar Singh as not related to late Algu Ram is invalid and illegal being not based on verification of documents or correct facts and whatever had been claimed by the Plaintiffs fraudulently were admitted as sacrosanct. XLV. Further, Ramkeshwar Singh - D. W. - 4 deposed at paragraph 4 of his evidence as under:
English Translation:-
"4. That, Algu Ram was my own cousin brother. Algu Ram had only one own brother - Radha Krishna Singh and he used to live with his brother Algu Ram at Dobo."27
2025:JHHC:32493 XLVI. In his cross examination at paragraph 21, D.W. 4 stated the following:
English Translation:-
"21......... I know Jhagru Singh. His father's name was Bhavnath Singh............."
XLVII. D.W. 4 was cross examined on the Voter List - Ext-7. However, he has not stated anything contrary to his deposition anywhere. However, very smartly he was not cross examined on his own document i.e., the Sale Deed, Ext - 9 and Genealogy, Exhibit 7 at all. Even the learned trial court did not bother to refer those two documents and cross examine Ramkeshwar Singh - D.W. - 4 in the suit and hence the impugned judgment to the extent of declaring Rameshwar Singh as not related to late Algu Ram is invalid and illegal being not based on verification of documents or correct facts and whatever had been claimed by the Plaintiffs fraudulently were admitted as sacrosanct.
XLVIII. Exhibit- 7 is most important document albeit a forged one, inasmuch as, Exhibit- 7 purportedly reflects Genealogies of two families one of purported Algu Ram and another Jhagru Singh. The said Genealogy also reflects as admitted by the Plaintiffs that one of the sons of Jhagru Ram namely, Lal Bihari Singh was alive having three living sons and none of them are aware that a Genealogy of their family has been procured from the Block office by the Plaintiffs and neither the family members of Algu Ram nor the family members of Jhagru Singh were consulted for verification of the said Exhibit- 7.
XLIX. Further, it has been submitted that Tarak Nath (died in 2015) was alive at the time when the suit was filed and his brother Baijnath was also alive and both were the legal representatives of Late Jogeshwar Ram. The respondents and others were neither legal representatives of Late Jogeshwar Ram, nor any right accrued to them with respect to the land involved in this case, much less, that of Late Algu Ram, which the plaintiffs claimed through Jogeshwar Ram.
L. The learned trial court has gone further wrong while passing order against Rameshwar Singh [Defendant No.3] against whom no order could be passed when no relief was prayed for by the plaintiffs. LI. The learned trial court ignored that Section 17 of the Registration Act clearly provides that any document (other than testamentary instruments) which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future "any right, title or interest" whether vested or contingent of the value of Rs. 100 28 2025:JHHC:32493 and upwards to or in immovable property must be registered. The learned trial court ignored the trite proposition of law mandated under Section 49 of the Registration Act that no document required by Section 17 to be registered shall, affect any immovable property comprised therein or received as evidence of any transaction affected such property, unless it has been registered. It is submitted that apparently the "Panchnama" is a forged document. LII. It is further submitted that both the purported power of attorneys are forged documents and both appeared to have been created post death of Late Jogeshwar Ram in a sinister design to capture the land belonging to others, other than ½ of the land belonging to Late Jogeshwar Ram.
LIII. The purported genealogy of Late Algu Ram was brought by the plaintiffs from Circle Office, Jagdishpur, Bihar which was not verified by the court as to whether the same was issued by the Circle Officer, Jagdishpur or not and further whether the said Circle Officer examined the family members of late Algu Ram who at the relevant time were residing in Jharkhand, before issuing the same subscribing his signature. In the absence of these verifications, the said genealogy had no evidentiary value and the learned trial court went wrong in admitting the same and the learned court considered that as genuine and passed order relying on that forged document, without giving any finding on the fact as to how a Circle Officer of Bihar can assume power in State of Jharkhand, as plaintiffs and defendants both were residing within the State of Jharkhand at the relevant time when the said certificate was issued. LIV. Nirvachan Card (Ext-4) is equally of a doubtful origin inasmuch as there are mention of two Radhakrishna Singh aged 45 years and 47 years and father's names as Briksh Singh and Ramgovind Singh respectively. It is further apparent by the perusal of all the affidavits and cross-examinations that no witness ever mentioned any name called Briksh Singh and the name referred is Rambriksh Singh and hence, this document also required scrutiny by the learned trial court before accepting that as evidence which the learned trial court failed for reason unknown. At first the learned trial court failed to verify the relevant page of Exhibit-9 where the name is mentioned as Radha Krishna Singh, who is actually the father of the Rameshwar Singh.
LV. The documents and the oral evidences have been extensively placed to bring home the contradictions and inconsistencies in the case of the plaintiffs.
LVI. It is trite that the plaintiffs could succeed in a suit for declaration of title and possession on the strength of their own title and hence, the 29 2025:JHHC:32493 onus was on them to prove their case by leading sufficient / cogent evidence for their claim on the said land admeasuring 5.1 acres. LVII. Therefore, under the abovementioned facts and circumstances the appellants prayed that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the appeal be allowed.
LVIII. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the following judgments:
(i) 2014 (2) SCC 269 (UOI & Ors Vs Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.)
(ii) 2012 (1) SCC 656 (Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.)
16. Arguments on behalf of plaintiffs / respondents A. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs (Respondents in the present appeal) 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. The property 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 the learned trial court.
B. He further submitted that there was no need to separately challenge the sale deeds which were executed by complete strangers to the property.
C. Jogeshwar Ram, Tarak Nath, Baij Nath and Balmiki are full brothers. Out of these four, only Baij Nath is alive. D. The plaintiffs are sons of Tarak Nath and it is an admitted fact that plaintiffs are own nephew of Jogeshwar Ram, but Rameshwar Singh, in no way, is connected either with Jogeshwar Ram or with Algu Ram and he is totally stranger.
E. Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram had self-acquired the suit property of an area 150 decimals bearing Plot No.1198 (Part) (69 decimals), Plot No.1199 (08 decimals), Plot No.1204 (54 decimals) and Plot No.1206 (19 decimals) of Khata No.9 under Mouza- Dobo, Thana No.331, Halka No.2, within P.S.- Chandil, District- Seraikella- Kharsawan under Registry Office- Seraikella. Land-in-question is the self-acquired property of Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram. F. The suit land stands recorded jointly in the name of own uncle of the plaintiffs, Jogeshwar Ram and his Sarhu, Algu Ram. They owned a total land of 5.10 acres in their joint name which were mutated in their names in the records-of-right and they were paying rent regularly to the Government and after their death, the plaintiffs were paying rent regularly till 2011.
302025:JHHC:32493 G. Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram, both died issueless. Algu Ram had died on 20.01.1996, while his wife Dukhni Devi had died on 27.07.2001. Jogeshwar Ram had died on 16.11.2000 and his wife Parvati Devi pre-deceased him on 28.08.2000.
H. Jogeshwar Ram was the Karta of joint family and when he grew old, he executed a power of attorney on 08.11.2000 in favour of plaintiff No.1 and appointed him as representative and on that basis, he is in possession of the suit property.
I. Algu Ram had executed a 'Panchnama' with respect to his entire property in favour of Jogeshwar Ram on 24.12.1990 giving him absolute right and ownership of the land-in-question. J. During his lifetime, Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram both remained in possession of the suit land having absolute right, title, interest and exclusive possession and constructed two houses over it. K. There was no partition of the suit property at all between Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram.
L. After death of Algu Ram and his wife, the plaintiffs and Jogeshwar Ram were residing jointly under the managership (Karta) of Jogeshwar Ram.
M. Prior to his death, Algu Ram had given his right, title, interest and possession to Jogeshwar Ram by executing a 'Panchnama' dated 24.12.1990 and consequent thereupon Jogeshwar Ram became absolute owner of the entire land of Khata No.9.
N. Jogeshwar Ram executed a power of attorney dated 08.11.2000 in favour of the plaintiff No.1, Krishna Singh with respect to the entire land of Khata No.9 and thus the plaintiffs have been coming in possession of the entire land and looking after the same being in absolute right, title, interest and possession thereof. O. The plaintiffs came to know about the sale of their land through the letter of Anchal Adhikari in Demarcation Case No.1/2012-13 and thereafter they came to know that the suit land was sold by the Defendant No.2, Lala Vivek Prasad in favour of defendant/appellant no.1 through Sale Deed No.1420 dated 03.03.2011. Earlier, the said suit land was sold by the Defendant No.4, Vijay Kumar Sinha to the Defendant No.2 by executing Sale Deed No.5889 dated 10.11.2010 on the basis of Power of Attorney No.1449 dated 21.10.2010 executed by Defendant No.3, Rameshwar Singh.
P. Rameshwar Singh (Defendant No.3) gave Power of Attorney to Vijay Kumar Sinha (Defendant No.4) who sold the land to Lala Vivek Prasad (Defendant No.2) and Defendant No.2 sold the suit property to Hi-Tech Heritage Limited (Defendant No.1). Q. It is submitted that though the defendants filed their Written Statement before the learned trial court, but they have not produced 31 2025:JHHC:32493 any chit of paper regarding relation of defendant no. 3 with Algu Ram and they have not established their right, title, interest and possession over the suit land prior to 2010.
R. All the PWs have deposed in favour of the plaintiffs. S. The most relevant defendants' witness is Defendant No.3 Rameshwar Singh, who has been examined as DW-2, who is son of Radha Krishan Singh and the root cause of the sale of the suit land. He has projected himself to be nephew of Algu Ram and claimed that his father Radha Krishna Singh was the brother of Algu Ram and he claimed to have inherited the property of Algu Ram.
T. After discussion of the issues framed, the learned trial court has been pleased to find and hold that Radha Krishna Singh is the son of Ram Vriksha Singh and Algu Ram is the son of Dev Nath Singh as such father of Defendant No.3 is not the brother of Algu Ram and he has got no relation at all with Algu Ram, and he is totally stranger to Jogeshwar Singh and Algu Ram and as such he had no right or authority to execute power of attorney in respect of the suit land.
U. The learned trial court, while discussing the Issue No.9, has observed that this issue is the core issue as to whether Rameshwar Singh is the nephew of late Algu Ram or not? The learned trial court has found and held that it is proved that Rameshwar Singh is not the nephew of Algu Ram and hence, he had no right to execute Power of Attorney in favour of defendant no. 4 which is quite clear by Ext.-9 and it is clear that his father Radha Krishna Singh was the son of Ram Vriksha Singh and Late Algu Ram was the son of Late Dev Nath Singh.
V. From the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is crystal clear that the learned trial court has rightly found that Defendant No.3 Rameshwar Singh was no way connected with Algu Ram as he claimed and as such, he had no right to execute power of attorney in respect of the suit land in favour of Vijay Kumar Sinha (Defendant No.4) and the same is not legal and valid. As such, further sale of the suit land by Defendant No.4 to Defendant No.2 and by Defendant No.2 to Hi-Tech Heritage Limited (Defendant No.1) is absolutely not legal and permissible in the eyes of law. W. The learned counsel for the respondents has accordingly submitted that the learned trial court has rightly been pleased to allow the Original Suit No.35 of 2012/Title Suit No. 35 of 2012 in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents.
322025:JHHC:32493 Findings of this Court.
17. The suit has been filed seeking a declaration that the deed of conveyance (sale deed no. 1420 dated 03.03.2011) executed by the defendant no.2 in favour of the defendant no.1 is forged and fabricated and the defendant no.1 has not acquired any interest in the suit premise. The previous sale deed dated 10.11.2010 executed by the defendant no.4 in favour of the defendant no.2 and also the registered power of attorney dated 21.10.2010 executed by the defendant no.3 in favour of defendant no. 4 on the strength of which the defendant no. 4 executed the sale deed dated 10.11.2010 in favour of defendant no. 2 has not been challenged in the prayer portion of the plaint. However, in the body of the plaint it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that defendant no.3 , through his attorney defendant no.4, had no right to sell the property to the defendant no.2 and the defendant no. 3 had no right to execute power of attorney in favour of the defendant No. 4 with respect to the suit land and all the deeds of the suit land executed by the defendants prior to the sale deed dated 03.03.2011 and including deed dated 03.03.2011 do not exist at all.
18. The suit land is a part of land recorded in the name of Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram who were Sahru and it is the specific case in the plaint that defendant no.3 was not the nephew of Algu Ram and not at all related, directly or indirectly, with Jogeshwar Ram or their family and therefore the power of attorney was fraudulently executed by defendant no. 3 in favour of the defendant no. 4 with respect to the suit property. In the plaint the plaintiffs claimed to be in possession of the suit property and rent was also claimed to have been paid to the State government regularly till 2011 and it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the defendants were fully aware that suit property belongs to the plaintiffs.
19. No relief was sought in the plaint seeking declaration of right, title, interest or possession of the plaintiffs nor there was any prayer 33 2025:JHHC:32493 seeking recovery of possession. The cause of action arose when the plaintiffs received a letter dated 09.06.2012 on behalf of the circle officer, Chandil seeking to demarcate the land followed by other letters and then the plaintiffs obtained the certified copies of the aforesaid documents from the registry office and filed the suit.
20. The suit was contested primarily on the ground that defendant no.3 had the right over the property being the legal heir and successor of Algu Ram being his nephew and all the transactions are valid; the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as all the legal heirs and successors of Jogeshwar Ram were not made party but it was not in dispute that the plaintiffs are the descendants of Jogeshwar Ram. Right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property was disputed. The suit property was claimed to be a portion of the ½ share of Algu Ram and it was asserted that the plaintiffs have not stated as to how they acquired the suit property. It was asserted that Jogeshwar Ram was the son of Sakhari Singh who was originally resident of Bhojpur, Bihar and Algu Ram was also the original resident of Bhojpur, Bihar. The case of the defendants was that Algu Ram did not leave behind any class- I heir and therefore his share devolved upon Radha Krishna Singh, his full brother and upon his death, it devolved upon his son, the defendant no. 3 (nephew of Algu Ram). An objection was also raised that earlier sale deed dated 10.11.2010 by which the defendant no.2 acquired title was not challenged and the suit as framed was not maintainable. Prayer for simple declaratory relief that the sale deed dated 03.03.2011 is forged, fabricated, without consideration and void ab initio was not maintainable without seeking its cancellation and during the course of arguments reference has been made to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Points for determination
21. After hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the following points for determination arise in the present case:
(i) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable?34
2025:JHHC:32493
(ii) Whether the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties?
(iii) Is the suit barred by the Specific Relief Act?
(iv) Whether the name of the plaintiffs' uncle Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram was jointly recorded in Revisional Survey Khatian of 1964 over the suit land and they remained whole life in their right, title, interest and possession as absolute owner of the same?
(v) Whether the suit land is self-acquired property of the plaintiffs' uncle Jogeshwar Ram and his Sarhu Algu Ram?
(vi) Whether Jogeshwar Ram acquired right, title, interest and possession over the suit land by virtue of 'Panchnama' dated 24.12.1990 executed by Algu Ram in favour of him?
(vii) Whether the plaintiffs acquired right, title, interest and possession over the suit land by inheritance and also by virtue of Registered Power of Attorney dated 08.11.2000 executed by Jogeshwar Ram to the Plaintiff -Krishna Singh?
(viii) Whether Rameshwar Singh (defendant no.3) is related as nephew of Late Algu Ram?
(ix) Whether it could be declared that the defendant no. 3 had no right to execute sale deed no. 5889 dated 10.11.2010 in favour of defendant no. 2 through the power of attorney on the premise that he had no right to execute power of Attorney No. 1449 dated 21.10.2010 with respect to the suit property in favour of the defendant no. 4?
352025:JHHC:32493
(x) Whether the Sale Deed No.1420 dated 03.03.2011 executed by defendant no.2 in favour of the Defendant No.1 is forged/ fabricated/ void ab-initio/ null and void?
(xi) Whether the learned trial court could have declared registered Sale Deed No.1420 dated 03.03.2011 executed by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1 as null and void in absence of any challenge to previous registered Sale Deed No.5889 dated 10.11.2010 with respect to the suit property? AND Whether the registered Sale Deed No.5889 dated 10.11.2010 could have been declared to be null and void when there was no specific challenge in the prayer portion of the suit?
22. The undisputed facts of the case before this Court are as under:
(i) Algu Ram was the brother-in-law (Sarhu) of Jogeshwar Ram. Jogeshwar Ram was the own uncle of the plaintiffs.
(ii) Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram had jointly acquired, owned and possessed 510 decimals of land of Khata no.9 which was jointly recorded in their names in the Survey Khatian of 1964. The suit land measuring 150 decimals is a part of the land under the said Khata No.9 relatable to ½ share of Algu Ram (255 decimals).
(iii) Algu Ram died issueless on 20.01.1996 and his wife namely, Dukhni Devi died on 27.07.2001. Jogeshwar Ram died issueless on 16.11.2000 and his wife namely, Parvati Devi had predeceased him on 28.08.2000.
(iv) The plaintiffs paid rent to the Government regularly till 2011.
(v) The Defendant No.3 (Rameshwar Singh) executed General Power of Attorney vide registered Deed No. IV 1449/2010 in favour of the Defendant No.4 (Vijay Kumar Sinha) 36 2025:JHHC:32493 for the share of land of Algu Ram measuring 255 decimals; on the strength of the said power of attorney, the Defendant No.4 executed Sale Deed No.5889 dated 10.11.2010 and sold 01 acre 50 decimals of land bearing Plot No.1198 (Part) (69 decimals), Plot No.1199 (08 decimals), Plot No.1204 (54 decimals) and Plot No.1206 (19 decimals) of Khata No.9 under Mouza- Dobo, Thana No.331, Halka No.2, within P.S.- Chandil, District-
Seraikella-Kharsawan to the Defendant No.2 (Lala Vivek Prasad) which is the suit land; thereafter, the Defendant No.2 executed Sale Deed No.1420 dated 03.03.2011 and sold the suit land to the Defendant No.1 (M/s Hi-Tech Heritage Ltd. represented by Aditya Narayan Mahato).
23. The case of the plaintiffs is that Jogeshwar Ram, Tarak Nath, Baij Nath and Balmiki are full brothers. Out of these four, only Baij Nath is alive. The plaintiffs are sons of Tarak Nath and it is an admitted fact that plaintiffs are own nephew of Jogeshwar Ram, but Rameshwar Singh, in no way, is connected either with Jogeshwar Ram or with Algu Ram and he is totally stranger.
Algu Ram had executed a 'Panchnama' with respect to his entire property in favour of Jogeshwar Ram on 24.12.1990 giving him absolute right and ownership of his share of land which includes the land-in-question. Consequent thereupon Jogeshwar Ram became absolute owner of the entire land of Khata No.9. After death of Algu Ram and his wife, the plaintiffs and Jogeshwar Ram were residing jointly under the managership (Kartaship) of Jogeshwar Ram. Jogeshwar Ram was the Karta of joint family and when he grew old, he executed a power of attorney on 08.11.2000 in favour of Respondent No.1(plaintiff no.1) and appointed him as his representative and on that basis, he is in possession of the suit property. After death of Jogeshwar Ram, the plaintiffs are in possession of the entire land of Khata no.9 and looking after the same and have absolute right, title, interest and possession continuously.
372025:JHHC:32493
24. Perusal of the plaint reveals that although the plaintiffs stated that deed of conveyance i.e. Sale deed dated 03.03.2011 executed by the Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 was preceded by another Sale Deed No.5889 dated 10.11.2010 executed by Defendant No.4 in favour of Defendant No.2 on the strength of power of attorney executed by Defendant No.3 in favour of Defendant No.4, but no relief was sought for in connection with the Sale Deed No.5889 dated 10.11.2010 and as per the plaint, the cause of action arose firstly on 03.03.2011 when Defendant No.2 executed the sale deed in favour of Defendant No.1.
25. Through the plaint, the plaintiffs had challenged the relationship of Defendant No.3 with Algu Ram and had stated that Defendant No.3 was neither related to Algu Ram, nor was related to Jogeshwar Ram. However, during the course of hearing it is not in dispute that Defendant No.3 was not related to Jogeshwar Ram in any manner whatsoever.
26. On the other hand, the case of the defendants/appellants as per the written statement is that the suit is not maintainable and is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. Tarak Nath Singh was the brother of Jogeshwar Ram and they were four brothers, namely, Balmiki Singh, Tarak Nath Singh, Baij Nath Ram and Jogeshwar Ram. All the legal heirs of Jogeshwar Ram including the sons of Balmiki Singh are the necessary parties to the suit. Defendant No.3, Rameshwar Singh has been wrongly made as Proforma Defendant, though reliefs have been claimed against him. The plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the suit property as their father Tarak Nath Singh is still alive.
Jogeshwar Ram died on 16.11.2000 and Jogeshwar Ram had executed alleged power of attorney on 08.11.2000 in favour of the plaintiff no.1, which is forged and fabricated.
Algu Ram died issueless leaving behind his brother Radha Krishna Singh who inherited half share of the lands and after his death, his only 38 2025:JHHC:32493 son namely, Rameshwar Singh [Defendant No.3] came in exclusive possession of the property. The plaintiffs have not made it clear in the plaint as to how and in what manner they have acquired right over the suit property originally belonging to Algu Ram, entitling them to institute the suit. Algu Ram was in possession of the half of the land till his death and after his death, it devolved upon his brother Radha Krishna Singh and after his death, it devolved upon Defendant No.3 (Rameshwar Singh) who continued in possession.
It was also their case that there has never been partition between Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram.
The 'Panchnama' by which Algu Ram allegedly allocated his share to Jogeshwar Ram and the 'power of attorney' allegedly executed by Jogeshwar Ram in favour of plaintiff no. 1 are forged and fabricated. Further, no property can be transferred by unregistered 'Panchnama'.
27. Thus, the core dispute apparently relates to relationship of Defendant No.3 with Algu Ram. The plaintiffs claim that Algu Ram was not related in any manner to defendant no.3 and the defendants claim that defendant no. 3 was the nephew of Algu Ram.
Further dispute is whether Algu Ram could have transferred his share through unregistered 'Panchnama' to Jogeshwar Ram.
28. From the perusal of the issues framed by the learned trial court, this Court finds that the issues were framed in relation to both the sale deeds i.e. Sale Deed No.1420 dated 03.03.2011 and also Sale Deed No.5889 dated 10.11.2010. The Sale Deed No.5889 dated 10.11.2010 was executed by Defendant No.4 in favour of Defendant No.2 and Sale Deed No.1420 dated 03.03.2011 was executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 and both the sale deeds were in relation to the same suit property. However, admittedly the Sale Deed No.5889 dated 10.11.2010 was not specifically challenged in the suit.
This fact has been specifically pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants to submit that the previous sale deed dated 10.11.2010 39 2025:JHHC:32493 having not been challenged in the relief portion, the subsequent sale deed having been challenged, no relief could have been granted with respect to the subsequent deed as the previous deed continued to remain intact and unchallenged.
29. In course of trial-
The plaintiffs examined 09 witnesses to prove their case, who are as under:
PW-1 Sudama Singh Plaintiff No. 2 PW-2 Barha Manjhi Formal witness
PW-3 Kokil Mahato
PW-4 Ram Naresh Singh
PW-5 Ram Narayan Singh
PW-6 Paras Mahto
PW-7 Krishna Singh Plaintiff No. 1
PW-8 Ramjee Singh
PW-9 Bhola Singh Plaintiff No. 3
The plaintiffs exhibited the following documents:
Exhibit-1 Power of attorney dated 16.07.2012 Exhibit-2 Original Rent Receipt No. 114063 Exhibit-2/1 Original Rent Receipt No. 890015 Exhibit-2/2 Original Rent Receipt No. 696001 Exhibit-2/3 Original Rent Receipt No. 754117 Exhibit-2/4 Original Rent Receipt No.767912 Exhibit-2/5 Original Receipt No.732283 dated 18.12.1983 Exhibit-2/6 Original Receipt No.719447 dated 24.12.1985 Exhibit-2/7 Original Receipt No.281003 dated 31.03.1983 40 2025:JHHC:32493 Exhibit-3 Certified copy of Sale Deed No. 1420 dated 03/03/2011 Exhibit-4 Voter Card (Nirvachan Card) dated 06.09.2017 Exhibit-5 Voter Card of Late Jogeshwar Singh Exhibit-6 Death certificate of Late Algu Ram Exhibit-6/1 to 6/3 Death Certificates of Late Dukhni Devi, Late Jogeshwar Ram and Late Parvati Devi Identification-X Letter of Indemnity (Xerox Copy) Exhibit-7 The certified copy of family list certificate no. 56 Exhibit-8 The certified copy of power of attorney no.
3518 dated 08.11.2000 Exhibit-9 The certified copy of sale deed no. 5889 dated 10.11.2010 The defendants examined 08 witnesses, who are as under:
DW-1 Dukhu Sahu Formal witness who is a writer of the impugned sale deed no. 1420 which was marked Ext. A. DW-2 Rameshwar Defendant no. 3 and claimed to Singh be the nephew of Algu Ram DW-3 Baijnath Singh Own uncle of the plaintiffs and also brother of Jogeshwar Ram and son of Sukhari Singh D.W.4 Ramkeshwar Uncle of DW-2 (Rameshwar Singh Singh-defendant no. 3) DW-5 Vijay Kumar Defendant No. 4 Sinha DW-6 Lala Vivek Defendant No. 2 Prasad DW-7 Prashant Kumar Formal witness Mandal DW-8 Aditya Mahato Assistant General Manager of Defendant No.1 The defendants exhibited the following documents:41
2025:JHHC:32493 Exhibit-A Sale deed No.1420 dated 03.03.2011 Exhibit-B Power of Attorney Exhibit-A/1 Sale deed No. 5889 dated 10.11.2010 Exhibit-C Rent receipt No. 026757 dated 29.12.2014 Exhibit-D Khatian Exhibit-E & E/1 Two Mutation Slips Exhibit-F Certified copy of order sheet Point of determination no. (i)
30. The suit was filed seeking a declaration that the sale-deed dated 03.03.2011 executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1 was forged and fabricated, without consideration and void ab-initio and that the defendant no. 1 had not acquired any interest in the suit premises. It is not in dispute that the entire 5.10 acres of land stood recorded in the name of Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram and both died issueless. The plaintiffs claimed that Algu Ram had transferred his share of land in favour of Jogeshwar Ram by 'Panchnama' dated 24.12.1990 during his lifetime and thereafter, Jogeshwar Ram became the owner of the entire 5.10 acres. Further, it was the case of the plaintiffs that Jogeshwar Ram executed power of attorney dated 08.11.2000 with respect to the entire property in favour of plaintiff no. 1 and that plaintiff no. 1 had been living with Jogeshwar Ram much prior to execution of power of attorney. Jogeshwar Ram expired on 16.11.2000. The plaintiffs claimed to be in peaceful possession of the property and claimed to have paid rent to the government regularly till 2011. The cause of action arose when the plaintiffs received a letter dated 09.06.2012 from the Circle Office, Chandil seeking to demarcate the land at the instance of defendant no. 1 and thereafter, they filed rejoinder before the Circle Officer. Upon coming to know about the sale-deed dated 03.03.2011 executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no.1, sale-deed dated 10.11.2010 executed by defendant no. 4 in favour of defendant no.2 and the registered power of attorney dated 21.10.2010 executed by defendant no. 3 in favour of defendant no. 4, 42 2025:JHHC:32493 the plaintiffs filed the present suit. All the aforesaid documents have been exhibited before the learned trial court as mentioned above except 'Panchnama' dated 24.12.1990 which has not been marked as exhibit in this case but reference has been made to the records of original suit No. 46 of 2012 where it has been exhibited and the said suit was also being tried by the same court.
31. This Court finds that the right of the plaintiffs was threatened at the instance of the defendants. It is an admitted fact on record that the plaintiffs are the descendants of Jogeshwar Ram and they claimed to be in possession of the suit property. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the suit was maintainable.
32. The learned trial court has held that the suit was maintainable in the present form by observing that the court was called upon to decide as to whether the defendants had any right, title and interest over the property to convey the same through power of attorney and sale-deed which was under challenge before the court and was of the view that the court has to find better title between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The finding of the learned trial court that the suit was maintainable does not call for any interference. The point for determination no.(i) is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
Point of determination no. (ii)
33. The plaint reveals that the plaintiffs did not seek any declaration of their title over the suit property, but they had challenged the right of the defendant no. 3 to deal with the share of the property of Late Algu Ram by asserting that defendant no. 3 was in no way related to Algu Ram and could not have inherited the share of the property of Algu Ram, who died issueless. The fulcrum of the case was -"Whether defendant no. 3 is the nephew of Algu Ram to have a right over the share of Algu Ram and sell his share of property to defendant no.2, who then could sell it to the defendant no.1?" Since the plaintiffs did not seek any declaration of their title over the property, this Court is of 43 2025:JHHC:32493 the considered view that the other legal heirs and successors of Jogeshwar Ram were not necessary parties in the suit.
34. Further, the plaintiffs during trial, have themselves brought on record one family tree said to have been issued by the Circle Officer, Bhojpur, Bihar showing legal heirs and successors of Algu Ram which did not include the defendant no.3, but did not make any of them party in the suit. Since the relationship of defendant no. 3 with Algu Ram was the only matter in dispute which has direct bearing in the sale-deed dated 03.03.2011 executed by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1, this Court is of the considered view that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The learned trial court has rightly held that the suit was not bad for non-joinder or mis-joinder of necessary parties.
35. The point of determination no. (ii) is decided against the appellants (defendants) and in favour of the respondents (plaintiffs). Point of determination no. (iii)
36. This Court finds that the plaintiffs were claiming the property by virtue of the following documents in sequence: -
a) Unregistered 'Panchnama' dated 24.12.1990 executed by Jogeshwar Ram in favour of Algu Ram with respect to the share of Algu Ram (though 'Panchnama' has not been marked as exhibit in this case but reference has been made to the records of original suit No. 46 of 2012 where it has been exhibited and the said suit was also being tried by the same court);
b) Jogeshwar Ram transferred the entire property, including the share of Algu Ram to the plaintiff no. 1, his nephew, through registered power of attorney dated 08.11.2000;
c) The plaintiffs also claimed the property by way of inheritance through Jogeshwar Ram.
37. The consequence of unregistered 'Panchnama' and registered power of attorney dated 08.11.2000 in favour of the plaintiff no. 1 will be considered while dealing with the other points of determination involved in this case.
442025:JHHC:32493
38. The plaintiffs have neither sought declaration of their title nor sought cancellation of the registered sale-deed no. 1420 dated 03.03.2011 and the suit is a pure declaratory suit and the sale deed is alleged to be void ab-initio. The specific case of the plaintiffs is defendant no.3 has no relation with Algu Ram and has no right to deal with the share of Algu Ram after his death; the claim of defendant no.3 that he is the nephew of Algu Ram and acquired the share of Algu Ram through inheritance is not correct.
39. In the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of "Hussain Ahmed Choudhury and others Vs. Habibur Rahman (Dead) through Lrs. And others" reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 892 which was passed in Civil Appeal No. 5470 of 2025 (decided on 23rd April 2025), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of section 31 and section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which read as under:
"Section 31. When cancellation may be ordered.-
(1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.
(2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation.
Section 34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right.-
Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:
452025:JHHC:32493 Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.
Explanation.-A trustee of property is a "person interested to deny" a title adverse to the title of some one who is not in existence, and for whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee."
40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering section 31 of Specific Relief Act, has clearly held in paragraph 24 that section 31 of 1963 Act uses the word "may" and it is not a mandate, even as regards to parties to the instrument or the persons claiming through or under them, to seek for the cancellation of an instrument which is otherwise void and therefore, it cannot be contended that a stranger to the instrument must necessarily seek for its cancellation. It has been held that by no stretch of imagination can this be construed to mean that when there exists an instrument with respect to the same property but executed by some other person, the plaintiff despite being a stranger to that instrument would fall under the scope of "any person" in Section 31 of the Act of 1963.
41. After having explained the scope of section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and observed that the object of the proviso to Section 34 is to obviate the necessity for multiple suits by preventing a person from getting a mere declaration of right in one suit and then subsequently seeking another remedy without which the declaration granted in the former suit would be rendered otiose. It has been further held that the answer to the question whether it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to ask for further relief must depend on the facts of each case and such relief must be appropriate to and consequent upon the right or title asserted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that "Further relief" must be a relief flowing directly or necessarily from the declaration sought. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that all that the proviso forbids is a suit for pure declaration without necessary relief where the plaintiff being able to seek such a relief, has omitted to do so. The proviso must not be construed in a 46 2025:JHHC:32493 manner which compels the plaintiff to sue for any and all the reliefs which could possibly be granted to him. The plaintiff must not be debarred from obtaining a relief that he wants for the reason that he has failed to seek a relief which is not directly flowing from the relief of declaration already sought for. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also given illustration in paragraph 29 of its judgment to explain the position. It has also been held that a suit for cancellation of a sale deed and seeking a declaration that a particular document is inoperative as against the plaintiff are two distinct, separate suits. The earlier judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Abdul Rahim v. Sheikh Abdul Zabbar" reported in (2009) 6 SCC 160 was duly distinguished by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The findings of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Hussain Ahmed Choudhury (Supra), as recorded in paragraphs 28 to 31 and paragraphs 34 to 37 of the said judgment, are as under:
"28. The words used in proviso to Section 34 are "further relief" and "no other relief". Since, a further relief must flow necessarily from the relief of declaration, if such further relief is remote and is not connected in any way with the cause of action which has accrued in favour of the plaintiffs, then there is no need to claim a further relief and the proviso to Section 34 will not be a bar. All that the proviso forbids is a suit for pure declaration without necessary relief where the plaintiff being able to seek such a relief, has omitted to do so. The proviso must not be construed in a manner which compels the plaintiff to sue for any and all the reliefs which could possibly be granted to him. The plaintiff must not be debarred from obtaining a relief that he wants for the reason that he has failed to seek a relief which is not directly flowing from the relief of declaration already sought for.
29. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed under Section 31 of the Act, 1963. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to only seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to 'A' and 'B' -- two brothers. 'A' executes a sale deed in favour of 'C'. Subsequently 'A' wants to avoid the 47 2025:JHHC:32493 sale. 'A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if 'B', who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by 'A' is invalid/void and non est/illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence, both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non-binding. [See : Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 112]
30. As observed aforesaid, a plaintiff who is not a party to a decree or a document, is not obligated to sue for its cancellation. This is because such an instrument would neither be likely to affect the title of the plaintiff nor be binding on him. We have to our advantage two very old erudite judgments of the Madras High Court and one of the Privy Council on the subject.
31. In Unni v. Kunchi Amma reported in 1890 SCC OnLine Mad 5, the legal position has been thus explained:
"If a person not having authority to execute a deed or having such authority under certain circumstances which did not exist, executes a deed, it is not necessary for persons who are not bound by it, to sue to set it aside for it cannot be used against them. They may treat it as non-existent and sue for their right as if it did not exist." (Emphasis supplied)
32...
33...
34. Therefore, filing a suit for cancellation of a sale deed and seeking a declaration that a particular document is inoperative as against the plaintiff are two distinct, separate suits. The plaintiff in the present case, not being the executant of the sale deed dated 05.05.1997 executed in favour of the respondent no. 1 (original defendant no. 14), was therefore, not obligated to sue for its cancellation under Section 31 of the Act, 1963. The question that remains is whether the plaintiff ought to have sought for a declaration that the sale deed dated 05.05.1997 was inoperative in so far as he is concerned or is not binding on him.
35. One should not lose sight of the fact that a suit for declaration of title to be decided by a court takes within its fold, consideration of several factors as to how the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title. In such cases, the plea of the defendants about the validity, enforceability and binding nature of any document defeating the title of the plaintiff have also to be considered. In such cases, the court naturally views the evidence on both sides leaving apart the frame of the suit.48
2025:JHHC:32493
36. Therefore, the High Court having concurred with the Courts below on the legality and validity of the Gift Deed should not have dismissed the suit only on the ground that the plaintiff failed to pray for cancellation of the sale deed. The High Court should have kept the settled position of law in mind that the declaration of title is as good as a relief of cancellation of the sale deed or at least, a declaration that the sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff being void and thus non est.
37. Furthermore, it is a well-known and settled principle of law that the plaint must be read as a whole and the actual relief sought can also be culled out from the averments of the plaint. Those reliefs can be granted, if there is evidence and circumstances justifying the grant of such relief, though not directly or specifically claimed, or asked as a relief. The plaintiff had averred in his plaint that the original defendant nos. 1 to 6 had no title or saleable rights over the suit property. This reflects the intention of the plaintiff to not be bound by any instrument which they may have executed in favour of another party."
42. Upon perusal of the entire plaint and considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, the core issue involved in this case is "whether defendant no. 3 is the nephew of Algu Ram to have a right over the share of Algu Ram and sell his share of property to defendant no.2, who then could sell it to the defendant no.1?". It appears that the plaintiffs were asserting that the defendant no. 3 had no right with respect to the share of the property of Algu Ram by inheritance as he was not at all related to Algu Ram in any manner.
43. This Court is of the view that the declaration which was sought for through the present suit by the plaintiffs with respect to the sale- deed dated 03.03.2011 was not barred by the provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963. The learned trial court, while considering the point, has also held that the suit was not barred by Specific relief Act.
44. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the point of determination no. (iii) is decided against the appellants (defendants) and in favour of the respondents (plaintiffs).
Point of determination no. (xi)
45. In the present case the plaintiffs have sought a declaration that the sale-deed dated 03.03.2011 executed by defendant no. 2 in favour 49 2025:JHHC:32493 of defendant no. 1 was forged and fabricated, without consideration and void ab-initio and that the defendant no. 1 had not acquired any interest in the suit premises, but the previous sale deed with respect to the same property which is dated 10.11.2010 has not been challenged or no declaration has been sought that it is null and void. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgement in the case of Hussain Ahmed Choudhury (Supra), it is a well-known and settled principle of law that the plaint must be read as a whole and the actual relief sought can also be culled out from the averments of the plaint and those reliefs can be granted, if there is evidence and circumstances justifying the grant of such relief, though not directly or specifically claimed, or asked as a relief. Further, the law is also well settled through the aforesaid judgement based on previous judgement that if a person not having authority to execute a deed or having such authority under certain circumstances which did not exist, executes a deed, it is not necessary for persons who are not bound by it, to sue to set it aside for it cannot be used against them. They may treat it as non-existent and sue for their right as if it did not exist.
46. In the present case the fulcrum of the dispute is "whether defendant no. 3 is the nephew of Algu Ram to have a right over the share of Algu Ram and sell his share of property to defendant no.2, who then could sell it to the defendant no.1?" The plaintiffs have averred in the plaint that defendant no.3 had no right to execute any power of attorney/ sale deed through power of attorney with respect to the suit property of Algu Ram on the sole point that defendant no.3 was in no way related to Algu Ram and could not claim inheritance claiming to be his nephew, and thus defendant no.3 had no title or saleable rights over the suit property. This reflects the intention of the plaintiffs to not be bound by any instrument which defendant no.3 has executed and consequently not be bound by any follow up instrument including sale deed dated 10.11.2010 and also sale deed dated 03.03.2011. The perusal of the plaint reveals that the very locus of the defendant no. 3 to deal with the suit property was under challenge and 50 2025:JHHC:32493 the parties joined the issue and led evidence on the point and the learned trial court has held that Defendant no. 3 is neither the nephew of Algu Ram nor related to Algu Ram in any manner and the finding of the learned trial court has been upheld by this court while deciding point of determination no. (viii) in the subsequent paragraphs of this judgement .
Accordingly, it is held that the learned trial court has not erred in declaring the registered Sale Deed No.5889 dated 10.11.2010 and Sale Deed No.1420 dated 03.03.2011 as null and void even in absence of any prayer in the suit to challenge previous registered Sale Deed No.5889 dated 10.11.2010 with respect to the suit property. Point of determination no. (xi) is accordingly decided against the appellants (defendants) and in favour of the respondents (plaintiffs).
Point of determination no. (iv)
47. So far as point of determination no. (iv) is concerned, this Court finds that it is an admitted position that names of Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram were jointly recorded in Revisional Survey Khatian of 1964. The plaintiffs claim that Algu Ram during his lifetime executed a 'Panchnama' and transferred his share of land to Jogeshwar Ram by virtue of which Jogeshwar Ram became the exclusive owner of the entire 5.10 acres and admittedly, 'Panchnama' was not registered. It is also an admitted fact that the suit property was referrable to the ½ share, that is, 2.55 acres of Algu Ram, out of total area of 5.10 acres.
48. The perusal of the documentary and oral evidences on record reveal that no evidence was produced on behalf of the defendants to show that Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram had separated themselves at any point of time and were holding their half share to the exclusion of other. It has come during the evidence that at no point of time their share was separately mutated in their respective names. It is the case of the plaintiffs that after executing the 'Panchnama' dated 24.12.1990, Algu Ram had left the place and had gone to Bhojpur, Bihar and subsequently he died and his wife also died issueless. Since the 51 2025:JHHC:32493 'Panchnama' dated 24.12.1990, alleged to have been executed by Algu Ram in favour of Jogeshwar Ram, is an unregistered document, the same is not admissible in evidence and is hit by the provisions of section 17 of the Registration Act. 'Panchnama' cannot be treated as document for transfer of right, title and interest of ½ share of Algu Ram in favour of Jogeshwar Ram as claimed by the plaintiffs. Further, there is no material on record to show that Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram had separated themselves half-and-half or separated themselves in any manner whatsoever.
49. This Court holds that Jogeshwar Ram did not acquire any right, title and interest over the suit land by virtue of 'Panchnama' dated 24.12.1990 executed by Algu Ram in favour of Jogeshwar Ram and both of them continued to remain in joint possession as absolute owner holding joint right, title and interest over entire 5.10 acres of land including the suit land. The point of determination no. (iv) is answered by holding that the name of plaintiffs' uncle Jogeshwar Ram and name of Algu Ram were jointly recorded in Revisional Survey Khatian of 1964 over the entire land of 5.10 acres including the suit land and they remained whole life having their right, title, interest and possession as absolute owner of the same.
50. The point of determination no. (iv) is accordingly answered against the plaintiffs.
Point of determination no. (v)
51. So far as point of determination no. (v) is concerned, the evidences on record, as discussed, clearly reveal that the entire 5.10 acres of land was the self-acquired property of Jogeshwar Ram and his Sarhu Algu Ram and the suit property is a part of the said property. During the course of arguments also there is no dispute on this aspect of the matter and the position stands admitted by the parties.
The Point of determination no. (v) is accordingly decided. Point of determination no. (vi) and (vii) 52 2025:JHHC:32493
52. While considering the 'Panchnama' dated 24.12.1990, the learned trial court has held that it was essentially in the nature of Will and was the last wish of Algu Ram. This Court is of the considered view that such an approach of the learned trial court to treat the 'Panchnama' as 'Will' to confer title upon Jogeshwar Ram and then upon the plaintiffs is ex-facie perverse and not permissible under law and is also against the provisions of Indian Succession Act. The Will, if any, remains a chit of paper till it is duly probated as per the provision of law applicable to the parties.
53. In the impugned judgment while dealing with power of attorney executed by Jogeshwar Ram in favour of the plaintiff no.1, the document executed by Algu Ram in favour of Jogeshwar Ram has been referred to as power of attorney and this document has been treated as last Will and this document ,'Panchnama', has also been treated as an instrument of giving permissive possession to Jogeshwar Ram and further, the power of attorney given by Jogeshwar Ram in favour of the plaintiff no. 1 has been similarly treated. Further, while considering as to whether Jogeshwar Ram acquired any right, title and possession over suit land by virtue of 'Panchnama' dated 24.12.1990, the learned trial court has held that though it was not registered, but it shows the last wish of Algu Ram in which he expressed specifically that the land belonging to him will be taken care by Jogeshwar Ram. It has been held that since the Jogeshwar Ram and his relatives were peacefully enjoying the property without any disturbance for almost 12 years, they have perfected their right and title over the property although it is not a registered document. The learned trial court declared adverse possession in favour of the plaintiffs and held that they have perfected their right, title and intertest over the property.
54. Such an approach of the learned trial court is ex-facie perverse. No such declaration of adverse possession could be made in favour of the plaintiffs in absence of any pleading regarding adverse possession. No such issue of adverse possession was framed by the learned trial court. Further, legal heirs and successors of Algu Ram (original owner 53 2025:JHHC:32493 of the property) have not been made party to the proceedings and it is nobody's case that Algu Ram died without any heir, although admittedly he died issueless.
55. Further, the learned trial court accepted the 'Panchnama' in three different ways- (a) as Will of Algu Ram (b) document of permissive possession to Jogeshwar Ram and (c) considered for declaration of adverse possession of Jogeshwar Ram and his relatives. Such findings are conflicting amongst themselves and are beyond the pleadings/frame of the suit. This is without any foundational pleading by the plaintiffs and without making legal heirs of Algu Ram (real owner) as party to the proceedings. Adverse possession cannot be declared without foundational pleading and without proof with respect to each element of adverse possession, that is, possession is actual, open and notorious, exclusive, continuous and hostile to the true owner's right, all for specified statutory period of 12 years. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that Algu Ram transferred his share to Jogeshwar Ram vide unregistered 'Panchnama' which certainly cannot be accepted in law for want of registration. It is sufficient to observe that the plaintiffs have remained in possession as per the materials placed on record.
56. It is held that Jogeshwar Ram, and then plaintiff no. 1 through Jogeshwar Ram, did not acquire any right over the property by virtue of 'Panchnama' dated 24.12.1990 executed by Algu Ram in favour of Jogeshwar Ram. The Point of determination no. (vi) is accordingly decided against the plaintiffs.
57. So far as point of determination no. (vii) is concerned, it is in two parts; firstly, as to whether plaintiffs acquired right, title, interest and possession over the suit land by inheritance and secondly, whether they acquired such right by virtue of registered power of attorney dated 08.11.2000 executed by Jogeshwar Ram to the plaintiff no.1 - Krishna Singh.
58. So far as the claim of title by virtue of registered power of attorney dated 08.11.2000 is concerned, the law is well-settled that Special power of attorney/ General Power of attorney/ will transactions 54 2025:JHHC:32493 are not transfers or sales and such transactions cannot be treated as completed conveyances or transfers [(2012) 1 SCC 656 (Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited Vs. State of Haryana and Another)]. Thus, title did not pass to the plaintiffs through the registered power of attorney dated 08.11.2000. So far as the suit property which relates to the share of Algu Ram is concerned there is another hurdle, that is, even the unregistered 'Panchnama' executed by Algu Ram in favour of Jogeshwar Ram with respect to his share does not confer title as held above. The fact also remains that immediately after execution of power of attorney dated 08.11.2000, Jogeshwar Ram expired issueless on 16.11.2000 and his wife pre-deceased him sometimes in the month of August, 2000. Thus, it is held that the plaintiffs did not acquire any right, title and interest over the property by virtue of registered power of attorney dated 08.11.2000.
59. So far as the claim of inheritance of the suit property by the plaintiffs is concerned, this court is of the considered view that the suit property is the property which was dealt by the defendant no. 3 claiming himself to be the nephew of Algu Ram and the suit property is not of the share of Jogeshwar Ram.
60. Admittedly, plaintiffs are descendants of Jogeshwar Ram but are not related to Algu Ram in any manner, except that Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram jointly acquired the entire area of 5.10 acres. Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram belong to two different families and they are Sarhu (brothers in law -married to sisters) of each other. The plaintiffs claimed that Algu Ram transferred his share to Jogeshwar Ram by unregistered 'Panchnama' and then Jogeshwar Ram became the exclusive owner of the entire property and through Jogeshwar Ram the share of Algu Ram also devolved upon the plaintiffs, being descendants of Jogeshwar Ram. As already held above, the 'Panchnama' cannot be accepted as document of transfer of title of the share of Algu Ram to Jogeshwar Ram for want of registration. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the plaintiffs cannot claim the share of Algu Ram through inheritance.
552025:JHHC:32493 The point of determination no. (vii) is accordingly decided against the plaintiffs (respondents).
Point of Determination No.(viii), (ix) and (x)
61. It is the case of the plaintiffs in the plaint that Defendant no.3 is not the nephew of Algu Ram as his father Radha Krishna Singh was not the brother of Algu Ram and Jhagru Ram was the only brother of Algu Ram and therefore defendant no.3 could not have dealt with the properties of Algu Ram including the suit property as his legal heir and successor. On the other hand, the case of the defendants is that the defendant no.3 is the nephew of Algu Ram and being the heir of Algu Ram, defendant no.3 has rightly executed all the documents in question including the sale deed through his attorney (defendant no.4). From the perusal of the written statement filed by the defendants, it is clear that they had taken a specific stand that Algu Ram died issueless leaving behind his brother Radha Krishna Singh [father of Rameshwar Singh (defendant no. 3)]. The plaintiff in paragraph 21 of the plaint has stated that defendant no. 3 was never the nephew of Algu Ram nor he was directly or indirectly related with Algu Ram or Jogeshwar Ram and has also stated that Algu Ram was only two brothers. The name of his brother was Jhagru Singh who also died and it is an admitted fact on record that Algu Ram died issueless. Neither in the plaint nor in the written statement the name of father of Algu Ram was disclosed. The defendant no. 3 who claimed to be own nephew of Algu Ram also did not disclose the name of father of Algu Ram in the written statement. It is not in dispute that Algu Ram died issueless on 20.01.1996 and his wife died on 27.07.2001 and both died in their ancestral village Jagdishpur.
62. The plaintiffs had clearly pleaded that Rameshwar Singh (defendant no. 3) was not the nephew of Algu Ram. It was certainly for the defendants to prove the relationship between Algu Ram and defendant no.3.
63. As per exhibit 7 - the genealogy, though disputed by the defendants, the status relevant for the purposes of this case is as follows:
562025:JHHC:32493 Devnath Singh Jhagru Singh Algu Singh
64. As per the evidence of D.W. 3, Algu Ram had only one brother but his name was Radha Krishna and not Jhagru and admittedly, Defendant no. 3 was son of Radha Krishna Singh. The dispute revolves around as to whether Algu Ram was the brother of Jhagru Ram or Radha Krishna Singh.
65. There is consistent statement of the witnesses produced by the plaintiffs that Defendant no.3 is not the nephew of Algu Ram, Algu Ram was not the brother of father of the defendant no. 3; father's name of Algu Ram was Deonath who had no brother; Algu Ram had one brother namely, Jhagru who was not the father of defendant no. 3; Algu Ram belonged to Jagdishpur where he had ancestral property; Ram Janam Singh, Radha Krishna Singh (father of defendant no. 3) and Ramkeshwar Singh were sons of Ram Vriksh Singh.
66. The learned counsel for the appellants has stated that 5 witnesses have categorically stated that Late Algu Ram was the brother of Radha Krishna Singh and their father's name was Devnath Singh, they are P.W. 2 (at paragraph 20 of his cross-examination), P.W. 6 - own father- in-law of the plaintiff no.1 (at paragraph 5 of his cross-examination), D.W. 2 (at paragraph 3 of his statement on oath), D.W. 3 - Baij Nath Singh (at paragraph 9 of his statement on oath) and D.W. 4 - Ramkeshwar Singh (at paragraph 4 of his statement on oath).
67. So far as P.W. 6 - Paras Mahto is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants has only referred to one sentence of paragraph 5 of his cross-examination. The P.W. 6, in paragraph 5 itself, has categorically stated that he had not heard the name of Radha Krishna Singh and this statement is followed by his statement that Radha Krishna Singh was the brother of Algu Ram and further followed by his 57 2025:JHHC:32493 statement that Rameshwar Singh is the son of same Radha Krishna. The aforesaid statements made in the cross-examination are themselves contradictory. On the one hand, this witness has stated that he had not heard the name of Radha Krishna Singh and simultaneously gives statement that Radha Krishna Singh was the brother of Algu Ram and Rameshwar Singh (defendant no. 3) was the son of Radha Krishna. The evidence of P.W. 6 on the relationship of Radha Krishna and Algu Ram is not reliable.
68. So far as evidence of P.W. 2, in particular paragraph 20 of his cross-examination as relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, upon reading of the Hindi text as found in the records and its English translation as provided by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is nowhere stated therein that Algu Ram was the brother of Radha Krishna Singh (father of the defendant no.3). It has been simply stated that after death of Algu Ram the property was used by Radha Krishna Singh and after his death, his son Rameshwar Singh (defendant no. 3) has been using and enjoying the same and Jogeshwar Ram did not have any possession of that property. The aforesaid evidence of P.W. 2 does not support the contention of the appellants that Algu Ram was the brother of Radha Krishna Singh.
69. D.W. 2 is the defendant no. 3 (Rameshwar Singh) and the appellants have relied upon his evidence-in-chief in paragraph 3 and 12 to 14 and his cross-examination at paragraphs 20 and 26. In his examination-in-chief, he has supported his case by stating that Algu Ram was his elder father i.e., brother of Radha Krishna Singh. In paragraph 19 of his cross-examination, he has stated as under:
"Vriksh Singh was brother of my grandfather whose name was Ramjanam Singh and Ram Keshwar Singh."
In paragraph 6 of his cross-examination, D.W. 2 has stated that his father i.e., Radha Krishna Singh was in possession of the property of Algu Ram who also expired leaving behind Rameshwar Singh (defendant no. 3) as his only son. He has stated in his cross-examination at paragraph 21 that name of father of Ramjanam Singh was Vriksha 58 2025:JHHC:32493 Singh and father of Rameshwar Singh (defendant no. 3) is Radha Krishna Singh whose father was also Vriksha Singh. Thus, this witness has admitted that Ramjanam Singh and Radha Krishna Singh were full brothers whose father was Vriksha Singh. He has also stated that the father's name of Jhagru Singh was Devnath Singh which matches with the genealogy produced by the plaintiffs (exhibit-7) .
70. D.W-2 has also stated in his cross-examination at paragraph 22 that Jhagru Singh never came for partition with Algu Singh as he had partitioned the property and had taken the property at Jagdishpur. He has also stated in his cross-examination at paragraph 22 that at Jagdishpur there was ancestral property and Jhagru Singh and Algu Singh had partitioned the property and they had no concern with each other and Jhagru Singh never came to Jamshedpur. The cross- examination reveals that D.W. 2 has narrated about partition between Jhagru Singh and Algu Singh and has also disclosed that name of father of Jhagru Singh was Devnath Singh. Meaning thereby that Jhagru Singh and Algu Singh were brothers. This is in consonance with the genealogy produced by the plaintiffs (exhibit-7). This witness, in his cross-examination in paragraph 20 has stated that he knew Jhagru Singh whose father's name was Bhavnath Singh and he said that he came to know about it from the voter list. D.W-2 in quick succession in paragraph 21 of his cross-examination, has stated that the name of father of Jhagru Singh was Devnath Singh. The voter list has also been exhibited as exhibit-4 and the name of father of Jhagru Singh has been mentioned as Devnath Singh and further, the D.W-4 in his cross examination at paragraph 21 has referred to the voter list and stated that the name of father of Jhagru Singh has been mentioned as Devnath Singh but has not stated that such recording in the voter list is incorrect. Upon perusal of the genealogy (exhibit-7), it appears that the name of father of Jhagru Singh has been shown as Devnath Singh.
71. In paragraph 22 of his cross-examination, D.W-2 has stated that there was partition between Jhagru Singh and Algu Singh which goes to show that they were brothers. This is also supported by the genealogy 59 2025:JHHC:32493 (exhibit-7) where Jhagru Singh has been shown as full brother of Algu Singh and name of their father has been shown as Devnath Singh. While referring to the genealogy as produced by the plaintiffs , the D.W. 2 has not stated that the father's name of Algu Singh, which was shown as Devnath Singh, was incorrect although in paragraph 26 of his cross- examination, he has specifically stated that the name of Jhagru Singh has been wrongly entered in the genealogy.
72. D.W. 2 has also stated that it is not correct to say that he has no government document to prove that he is the nephew of Algu Ram. However, he has not produced any such government document for the reasons best known to him. The learned trial court has recorded that repeated opportunities were given to produce documentary evidence for this purpose by the defendants.
73. Since D.W. 2 was claiming to be the nephew of Algu Ram, it was for him to authoritatively prove by cogent evidence that he was the nephew of Algu Ram and Radha Krishna Singh was full brother of Algu Ram, rather his evidence revealed that Jhagru Singh was the brother of Algu Ram as there was also a partition between the two in respect to the property and the property at Jagdishpur which was allocated to Jhagru Singh. His evidence read with exhibit-4 (voter list) read with the evidence of D.W-4 has also supported the genealogy (exhibit-7) to the extent it relates to the relationship of Jhagru Singh, Algu Singh and their father Devnath Singh. The name of Jhagru Singh and Algu Singh have been interchangeably referred to as Jhagru Ram and Algu Ram respectively in the evidence of the witnesses and the name of Vriksha Singh and Ram Vriksh Singh has also been interchangeably used.
74. D.W. 3 is Baij Nath Singh who is the youngest brother of Jogeshwar Ram. Exhibit- D is the Khatiyan produced by the defendants. D.W. 3, in his evidence, has claimed that Algu Ram had only one brother namely, Radha Krishna Singh. D.W. 3 happens to be own uncle of the plaintiffs. He has stated during his cross-examination that he had been to Jagdishpur and he knew the people there. He has stated that in Jagdishpur he knew Ram Vriksh Singh who had two sons 60 2025:JHHC:32493 and also knew Devnath who also had two sons. He has further stated that he has not seen any document relating to Radha Krishna and Algu. He has further stated that Radha Krishna expired much prior to 1992 and Algu and his wife died in Jagdishpur. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that Algu Ram had expired in the year 1996 ( that is after the death of Radha Krishna who expired prior to 1992 as per his cross- examination) and wife of Algu Ram namely, Dukhni Devi expired in the year 2001. However, at the same time, he has stated in paragraph 9 of his evidence that after death of Dukhni Devi, the property of Algu Ram devolved upon his brother namely, Radha Krishna and after death of Radha Krishna, the property devolved upon his only son Rameshwar Singh although in his cross-examination, D.W. 3 has stated that Radha Krishna Singh had pre-deceased Algu Ram, inasmuch as, Algu Ram had expired in the year 1996 and Radha Krishna had expired prior to the year 1992. Thus, the story of succession by Radha Krishna Singh (father of defendant no. 3) after death of Algu Ram is self- contradictory.
75. D.W. 4 claimed to be the cousin brother of Algu Ram who said that Algu Ram had only one full brother Radha Krishna Singh. D.W. 4 is Ram Keshwar Singh and claims that Ram Janam Singh is his elder brother. Thus, Ram Keshwar Singh and Ram Janam Singh are full brothers and father's name of the two persons is Ram Vriksh Singh. This is also apparent from the sale deed (exhibit-9 in which father's name of Ram Keshwar Singh has been mentioned as Ram Vriksh Singh). This witness also admitted that as per voter's list of 1971, the father's name of Radha Krishna Singh was Vriksh Singh but did not state that in the voter's list the father's name of Radha Krishna Singh was wrongly mentioned. As mentioned above, D.W. 2 has stated that Vriksh Singh was father of Ram Janam Singh and Radha Krishna Singh. The evidence of D.W. 2 and D.W. 4 when taken together, reveal that Ram Janam Singh, Radha Krishna Singh (father of defendant no.
3) and Ram Keshwar Singh were full brothers and merely because in the voter list name of father of Radha Krishna Singh was mentioned as 61 2025:JHHC:32493 Vriksh Singh and not Ram Vriksh Singh, the same makes no difference. Even the defendants' witnesses have mentioned the name 'Vriksh Singh' and 'Ram Vriksh Singh' interchangeably. D.W. 4 has also stated that Algu Ram had only one full brother namely Radha Krishna Singh but the evidences as discussed reveal that Radha Krishna Singh had two brothers - Ram Keshwar and Ram Janam, all sons of Vriksh Singh/Ram Vriksh Singh.
76. Even the D.W. 5, who is the power of attorney holder of defendant no. 3, admitted at paragraph 31 of his cross examination that he knew that defendant no. 3 was not the nephew of Algu Ram and defendant no. 3 had no document of the Khata No. 9 and other plots. He has also stated in paragraph 36 of his cross examination that the defendant no. 3 and his father never lived on the suit property and he could not say as to whether they ever cultivated the suit land.
77. Once the relationship of the defendant no. 3 with Algu Ram was denied by the plaintiffs, it was for the defendants, particularly, defendant no. 3 to prove his relationship with Algu Ram. This Court is of the considered view that no evidence has been produced by the defendant no. 3 or the other defendants which could prove that defendant no.3 was the nephew of Algu Ram or he was in any way connected/related with Algu Ram. Defendant no. 3 (D.W-2) has stated in his cross examination that he has documentary evidence issued by government to prove that he was nephew of Algu Ram but no such document was produced by the defendants.
78. The evidence on record goes to prove that the defendant no.3 was not the nephew of Algu Ram and the defendants have failed to prove that defendant no. 3 was the son of the only brother of Algu Ram. Even the D.W-5 (defendant no.4), the power of attorney of D.W. -2 (defendant no. 3) knew very well that the defendant no.3 was not the nephew of Algu Ram as is apparent from his cross-examination and still he went on to sell the property in the name of Defendant no.3 showing him to be the successor of Algu Ram (nephew of Algu Ram).
622025:JHHC:32493 The learned trial court has rightly held that the Defendant No.3 (D.W-
2) is not the nephew of Algu Ram.
Thus, it is held that Defendant no.3 is not the nephew of Algu Ram. The point of determination no. (viii) is accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiffs.
79. In view of the findings while deciding point for determination no. (viii) that Defendant no.3 is not the nephew of Algu Ram, this court is of the considered view that defendant no. 3 had no right to execute sale deed no. 5889 dated 10.11.2010 in favour of defendant no. 2 through the power of attorney (defendant no. 4) with respect to the suit property, that is, the property of Algu Ram. The point of determination no. (ix) is also decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants /appellants. Since the defendant no. 2 acquired title through sale deed no. 5889 dated 10.11.2010 and the vendor (defendant no. 3) had no right to sell the property of Algu Ram, the subsequent sale deed no. 1420 dated 03.03.2011 is void -ab- initio /null and void. This court is of the considered view that the learned trial court has rightly held that Rameshwar Singh - Defendant No.3, who executed Power of Attorney concerning disputed land is not nephew of the real owner of the property and consequently, rightly declared all the transactions (i. e. sale deeds) based on such Power of attorney as null and void along with Power of Attorney executed by the Defendant No.3 Rameshwar Singh. The point of determination no. (x) is also decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants /appellants.
80. Having held that Rameshwar Singh [Defendant No.3- who executed Power of Attorney dated 21.10.2010 (exhibit-B) , inter alia, concerning suit land] is not nephew of the real owner of the property, namely Algu Ram, all the transactions i.e., Sale Deed No.5889 dated 10.11.2010 executed by the Defendant No.3 through power of attorney defendant no. 4 in favour of the Defendant No.2 as well as Sale Deed No.1420 dated 03.03.2011 executed by the Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 based on such Power of attorney are null and void 63 2025:JHHC:32493 along with Power of Attorney dated 21.10.2010 executed by the Defendant No.3.
81. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, this appeal is dismissed.
82. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.
83. There shall be no order as to costs.
84. The office is to prepare decree accordingly.
85. Let a copy of this Judgment be communicated to the concerned court through "Fax/E-mail".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Judgment: 29th October 2025 Pankaj Date of Uploading: 01st November 2025 64