Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Singh vs Hi-Tech Heritage Limited on 10 November, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2025:JHHC:33501
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 156 of 2023
1. Krishna Singh, aged about 61 years,
2. Sudama Singh, aged about 58 years,
3. Bhola Singh, aged about 56 years
All Sons of Taraknath Singh, Resident of Village- Dobo, P.O. &
P.S.- Chandil, District- Seraikella - Kharsawan
...... Plaintiffs/Appellants
-Versus-
1. Hi-Tech Heritage Limited, a Company Incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at White House-
4, D119, Pane Street Kolkata-700016 represented by Mr. Aditya
Narayan Mahto, son of Sri Kamla Kant Mahato, Resident of Sukla,
P.O. & P.S.- Paramda, Town- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum
(Purchaser).
2. Sri Vijay Kumar Sinha, son of Sri N.G.P. Sinha, Resident of Qtr. No.
17, Duni Road, Old Baridih, P.O. & P.S.- Sidhgora, Town-
Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum
3. Baij Nath Singh, son of Late Sukhari Singh, Resident of Adityapur,
P.O. & P.S.- RIT, District- Seraikella Kharsawan, at present residing
at Purana Basti, Sonari, P.O. & P.S.- Sonari, Town- Jamshedpur,
District- East Singhbhum
.... Defendants/Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. T.N. Ojha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Md. Imran Hasan, Advocate
---
Reserved on 18.06.2025 Pronounced on 10.11.2025
1. This First Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.03.2023 (Decree sealed and signed on 13.04.2023) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Chandil in Original Suit 2025:JHHC:33501 No.34 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.
2. The plaintiffs/appellants had filed Original Suit No.34 of 2012 for the following reliefs:
(i) That it be declared the deed of conveyance (Sale Deed) No.1422 dated 03.03.2011 executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of 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 85 decimals in Plot No.1198 (Part), Khata No.9 under Mouza- Dobo, Thana No.331, Halka No.2 situated within P.S.- Chandil, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan, State- Jharkhand under Registry Office- Seraikella, which is bounded as North:
Plot No.1197, South: Dilip Kumar Singhddeo, East: Portion of Plot No.1198 and West: Plot No.1198.
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 Limited and the Defendant No.2 is Vijay Kumar Sinha. The Defendant No.3 is Baij Nath Singh son of Late Sukhari Singh and brother of Late Jogeshwar Ram. The Defendant No.3 has claimed to be the original owner of the suit property. Defendant No.4 is Lala Vivek Prasad who is the Power of Attorney holder of the Defendant No.3.
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 2 2025:JHHC:33501 Ram died issueless on 16.11.2000. Algu Ram died issueless on 20.01.1996 and his wife Dukhni Devi died on 27.07.2001. B. The Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the own brothers of Plaintiff No.1 and Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 have executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Plaintiff No.1 authorizing him to represent them in all courts or office, sign plaints, file suits or applications on their behalves and to do all things on their behalves as the case may require.
C. 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.
D. 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. E. 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. F. 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. The plaintiffs filed rejoinder to the letter dated 13.06.2012. This was followed by other letters from the circle office. Thereafter, the plaintiffs obtained the certified copy of the Sale Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011 executed by the Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 and Sale Deed No.5888 dated 10.11.2010 3 2025:JHHC:33501 executed by the Defendant No.3 through his attorney, the Defendant No.4 in favour of the Defendant No.2.
G. 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.1422 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 vide deed no. 1523/2010 dated 02.11.2010.
H. The plaintiffs further stated that the defendants, prior to the execution of the above-mentioned deeds, were aware of the fact that the suit property belonged to the plaintiffs and they have fraudulently obtained the illegal, forged and fabricated sale deed for the purpose of their wrongful gain and to grab the suit property of the plaintiffs.
I. The plaintiffs further stated that all the sale deeds are forged and fabricated documents and the purchasers have not derived any title and interest by the power of attorney as the attorney cannot derive the right to transfer the suit property. They further stated that the proforma defendants have been made party to avoid non- joinder and mis-joinder of parties. All the deeds of the suit land executed between the defendants prior to execution of the Deed No.1422 and including the deed no. 1422 do not exist at all. They further stated that no partition was done amongst Jogeshwar Ram and his three brothers as stated in the Deed No.1422 because the suit property is a self-acquired property of Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram, who executed a power of attorney in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs requested the Defendant No.1 to write a deed of disclaimer in their favour and at first, he was ready, but on 30.06.2012, he refused to write the same, which clouds the title 4 2025:JHHC:33501 of the plaintiffs over the suit land due to the execution of the sale deed.
J. The plaintiffs further stated that the cause of action arose on 03.03.2011 when the Defendant No.2 illegally executed the Deed of Conveyance (Sale Deed) in favour of Defendant No.1, on 30.06.2012 when the Defendant No.1 refused to write Deed of Disclaimer, on the same day on 30.06.2012 when the Defendant No.1 & 2 threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land and on 13.06.2012 when the Anchal Adhikari, Chandil issued notice to the plaintiffs for demarcation of the suit land and other lands.
7. Case of the Defendant No.1 The Defendant No.1 filed its written statement on 16.03.2013 stating as under:
I. The suit is not maintainable in its present form and for the reliefs claimed, there is no cause of action or right to bring the suit, the suit is barred by limitation, estoppel, waiver, acquiescence, provisions of T.P. Act and Registration Act, provisions of Specific Relief Act and C.P. Code. The plaint has not been verified properly, signed and verified as required under the law and on that score alone, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The description of the suit land as given in the plaint is incorrect, vague, and indefinite and unless the sketch map of the suit land is annexed with the plaint, the suit land cannot be identified. II. The suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. The legal heirs and successor of Late Algu Ram are necessary parties in the suit and in their absence, the suit cannot proceed. All the legal heirs of Balmiki Singh including his sons namely, Awadh Singh, Hiralal Singh and Jitendra Singh are necessary parties to the suit. Further, Bajnath Singh has been wrongly made as proforma defendant, though reliefs have been claimed against him.
III. The plaintiffs have got no locus to file the suit, as their father Tarak Nath Singh is still alive and the plaintiffs have got no 5 2025:JHHC:33501 manner of right, title and interest over the suit property. Tarak Nath Singh, the father of the plaintiffs is alive as is apparent from the facts of the plaint itself.
IV. The plaintiffs have not made it clear in the plaint as to how and in what manner they have acquired the right over the suit property entitling them to institute the suit and hence the suit be dismissed in limine.
V. The Defendant No.1 claimed that the Plaintiff No.1 in collusion with Plaintiff Nos.2 & 3 has filed the suit to extract money from the defendants for their wrongful gain and therefore, they have suppressed and concealed the material facts in the plaint. VI. While giving para-wise reply, the Defendant No.1 stated that alleged Power of Attorney is illegal, invalid, ineffective, inadmissible in law and collusive. The Defendant No.1 denied that Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram cleared the bush and made the land fit for cultivation, but admitted that Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram were recorded tenants. The Defendant No.1 further denied that Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram paid rent to the State Government upto the year 2011.
VII. The plaintiffs never resided with their uncle Jogeshwar Ram jointly under managership and kartaship of Jogeshwar Ram. The Defendant No.1 further stated that the Power of Attorney dated 08.11.2000 executed in favour of Krishna Singh authorising him to manage the entire land and transfer, if needed and file suits, etc. is forged, fabricated and manufactured. The Defendant No.1 also denied that since prior to 08.11.2000, the plaintiffs have been looking after the same with their uncle and they have been coming in absolute right, title, interest and possession over it continuously till now. The Defendant No.1 further 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 had executed Punchnama in that regard and consequently, Jogeshwar Ram became absolute owner of the said land. The Defendant No.1 stated that the Punchnama is a forged, manufactured, invalid and 6 2025:JHHC:33501 illegal document which is inadmissible in evidence and by such document, title could not be conferred.
VIII. The letters issued by the Anchal Adhikari are in due course of exercise of its jurisdiction. The Defendant No.1 also 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. IX. The Defendant No.2 had purchased the suit land from the Defendant No.3 through his legally constituted attorney namely, Lala Vivek Prasad by means of registered Sale Deed No.5888 dated 10.11.2010 on payment of valuable consideration to the Defendant No.1 and the possession of the land was delivered to Defendant No.1 after purchase and since then, the Defendant No.1 came in possession of the land and got its name mutated and is paying rent to the State.
X. The Defendant No.3 had full right to appoint attorney and the constituted attorney had full right to transfer the suit land. The Defendant No.1 further stated that the suit land never belonged to the plaintiffs and denied that the sale deeds are forged, fabricated and have been obtained for the purpose of wrongful gain and to grab the lands of the plaintiffs. The Defendant No.1 further denied that all the sale deeds and power of attorney are bogus, forged and fabricated documents and the purchasers have not derived any title and interest by the power of attorney and that the attorney did not have power to transfer the lands.
XI. The defendant no. 1 denied that all the deeds of the suit land executed prior to execution of Deed No.1422 do not exist at all. The Defendant No.1 further stated that there was partition of the land amongst the Defendant No.3 and his brothers with respect to ½ share of total land (1/2 share belonged to Jogeshwar Ram and ½ to Algu Ram) after death of Jogeshwar Ram and accordingly ½ share of total land devolved upon brothers of late Jogeshwar Ram, namely, Balmiki, Taraknath and Baijnath. The Defendant No.3 sold a portion of the land of his share and was in his possession.7
2025:JHHC:33501 The Defendant No.1 further stated that after death of Algu Ram, his ½ share in the properties devolved upon his brother namely, Ram Krishna Singh who died leaving behind his only son Rameshwar Singh who came in possession of ½ share of the land belonging to Algu Ram as the owner of the property. The Defendant No.1 further stated that Power of Attorney purported to have been executed by Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram are forged, fabricated, manufactured and illegal and therefore, the alleged power of attorney lost its force after death of the persons concerned.
XII. The allegations made in the plaint are false, vague and imaginary. The plaintiffs had no occasion to request Defendant No.1 demanding a deed of disclaimer and the plaintiffs have got no manner of right to make such demand. The plaintiffs have no title over the land and no cause of action arose against the defendants for filing the suit.Case of the Defendant Nos. 2, 3 & 4
8. Defendant Nos. 2, 3 & 4 filed their joint written statement stating that suit is not maintainable in its present form and for the reliefs claimed, there is no cause of action or right to bring the suit, the suit is barred by limitation, estoppel, waiver, acquiescence, provisions of T.P. Act and Registration Act and provisions of Specific Relief Act. The suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code. The plaint has not been verified properly, signed and verified as required under the law. They further stated that the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties.
9. They further stated that the alleged power of attorney is illegal, invalid, ineffective and inadmissible in law and has been brought into existence in collusion with each other. The defendants have denied that Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram cleared the bush and made the land fit for cultivation. They denied that Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram were recorded tenants and they further denied that Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram paid rent to the state government upto the year 2011.
82025:JHHC:33501
10. They further stated that the plaintiffs never resided with their uncle Jogeshwar Ram jointly under the Managership and Kartaship of Jogeshwar Ram. The defendants further stated that the Power of Attorney dated 08.11.2000 executed in favour of Krishna Singh authorising him to manage the entire land and transfer, if needed and file suits, etc. is forged, fabricated and manufactured. The defendants denied that since prior to 08.11.2000, the plaintiffs have been looking after the same with their uncle and they have been coming in absolute right, title, interest and possession over it continuously till now. The defendants further denied that prior to his death, Algu Ram had given his right, title, interest and possession over the suit lands and other lands to Late Jogeshwar Ram and executed Punchnama in that regard and consequently, Jogeshwar Ram became absolute owner of the said land. The defendants stated that the alleged Panchama is a forged, manufactured, invalid and illegal document which is inadmissible in evidence and by such document, title could not be conferred.
11. They further stated that the letters issued by the Anchal Adhikari are in due course of exercise of his jurisdiction. The defendants 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.
12. They further stated that the Defendant No.2 had purchased the suit land from the Defendant No.3 through his legally constituted attorney namely, Lala Vivek Prasad by means of registered Sale Deed No.5888 dated 10.11.2010 on payment of valuable consideration and the possession of the land was delivered to Defendant No.1 and since then, the Defendant No.1 came in possession of the land and got its name mutated and is paying rent to the State. Further, they stated that the Defendant No.3 had full right to appoint attorney and the constituted attorney had full right to transfer the suit land.
13. They further stated that the suit land never belonged to the plaintiffs and denied that the sale deeds are forged and fabricated and has been obtained for the purpose of wrongful gain and to grab the lands of the plaintiffs. The defendants further denied that all the sale deeds and 9 2025:JHHC:33501 power of attorney are bogus, forged and fabricated documents and the purchasers have not derived any title and interest by the power of attorney and that the attorney did not have power to transfer the lands. The defendants denied that all the deeds of the suit land executed prior to execution of Deed No.1422 do not exist at all. They further stated that after death of Algu Ram, his half share in the properties devolved upon his brother namely, Ram Krishna Singh who died leaving behind his only son Rameshwar Singh who came in possession of half share of the land belonging to Algu Ram as the owner of the property. The alleged Power of Attorney purported to have been executed by Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram are forged, fabricated, manufactured and illegal and therefore, the alleged power of attorney lost its force after death of the persons concerned.
14. They further stated that the plaintiffs had no occasion to request Defendant No.1 demanding a deed of disclaimer and the plaintiffs have got no manner of right to make such demand. The plaintiffs have no title over the land and no cause of action arose against the defendants for filing the suit. The defendants claimed that in the light of the reliefs sought and the case made out in the plaint, the plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valorem court fees on the value of the suit properties and the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed with cost.
15. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court had framed 15 issues for consideration, which are as under:
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is maintainable in its present form?
2. Whether the plaintiffs have a proper cause of action to file the suit or not?
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by the rules of limitation or not?
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by the principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or not?10
2025:JHHC:33501
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, Specific Relief Act and the Code of Civil Procedure?
6. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties or not?
7. Whether the disputed property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs or not?
8. Whether the description of the plaintiffs' property is untrue and unclear or not?
9. Whether the names of Jogeshwar Ram, uncle of the plaintiffs, and Algu Ram are recorded in the Revisional Survey of 1964 or not and whether they were enjoying their right, title, interest and possession over this property as sole owners throughout their life or not?
10. Whether the plaintiffs acquired title, interest and possession over the disputed property by inheritance and whether they acquired interest over the disputed property through the registered power of attorney executed by Jogeshwar Ram on 08.11.2000 in favour of Krishna Singh or not?
11. Whether the disputed property is the self-acquired property of Jogeshwar Ram, uncle of the plaintiffs, and Algu Ram or not?
12. Whether Baij Nath Singh has acquired any right, title and interest over the disputed property or not?
13. Whether the registered Sale Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011 executed by the Defendant No.2 in favour of the Defendant No.1 is forged, fabricated and void since the beginning and whether the Defendant No.1 has acquired any interest in the property or not?
14. Whether the Defendant No.4 had the right to execute the Sale Deed No.5888 dated 10.11.2010 in favour of Defendant No.2 and whether the Defendant No.3 had the right to execute the Power of Attorney No.1523 dated 02.11.2010 in favour of Defendant No.4 or not?
15. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought or not?
112025:JHHC:33501
16. The learned trial court considered the materials available on record and recorded its findings in Paragraph Nos. 13 to 26 of the Judgment, which are translated in English as under:
"13. Issue No.1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable in its present form or not?
Since the main issue has been decided against the plaintiff and evidence for the maintainability of the plaint is not available on the plaint, hence for these reasons the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable in the present form. Hence this issue is decided against the plaintiffs.
14. Issue No.2, whether the plaintiffs have a proper cause of action to file the suit or not?
The plaintiffs have been unable to prove their case in any manner as the main issue has been decided against the plaintiffs in which they have completely failed to prove their claim. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiffs had no cause of action to bring this suit. Therefore, this issue of action is also decided against the plaintiffs.
15. Issue No.3: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the rules of limitation or not?
Since the main issue has been decided against the plaintiffs and no courage has been shown by the plaintiff and the defendant on the above-mentioned issues and in any case the burden of proving one's case lies on the plaintiff and since the plaintiff has been unable to prove his main issue in his favour. Therefore, the above-mentioned issues are also decided against them.
16. Issue No.4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or not?
Since the main issue has been decided against the plaintiff, no evidence has been produced on record or brought before the court regarding the principles of estoppel, waiver and 12 2025:JHHC:33501 acquiescence. Therefore, due to the above grounds, this issue is also decided against the plaintiff.
17. Issue No.5: whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act, Specific Relief Act and the Code of Civil Procedure?
Since the main issue has been decided against the plaintiff and the plaintiff has been unable to prove his case. Therefore, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
18. Issue No.6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by non- joinder and misjoinder of the necessary parties or not?
Since the main issue has been decided against the plaintiff and the plaintiff has been unable to prove his case and even though the plaintiff's father is alive who was a necessary party, has not been made a plaintiff in this case. Therefore, this case is barred by non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. Hence, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.
19. Issue No.7: -Whether the disputed property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff or not?
As per the admitted facts of the suit, it has come to light that the disputed property was purchased by two brothers Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram and their names are recorded in the Khatiyan. Therefore, this property cannot be considered as ancestral property. Since the property has been acquired by Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram, the property is self-acquired property and not ancestral property and since the main issue has gone against the plaintiffs, therefore, this issue is also decided against the plaintiff.
20. Issue No.8: -Whether the details of the plaintiff's property are incorrect and unclear or not?
No facts have been brought in the suit which makes the details of the property untrue and unclear and no evidence has been brought on this point and since the main issue has been 13 2025:JHHC:33501 decided against the plaintiffs, therefore, this issue is also decided against the plaintiff.
21. Issue No.9: -Whether the names of the uncles of the plaintiff, Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram are recorded in the Revisional Survey of 1964 or not and whether they have been enjoying their right, title, interest, and possession on this property as sole owners throughout their life or not?
This issue is based on the facts admitted by both the parties and this disputed property is recorded in the Khatian in the name of the uncles of the plaintiffs, Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram, which has been marked as Exhibit-1. It is clear from this that this suit property is registered in the name of Jogeshwar Ram document and Algu Ram. Therefore, on the basis of the above facts, this Court finds that there is no dispute on this issue. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
22. Issue No.10: -Whether the plaintiffs acquired right, title, interest and possession on the disputed property as inheritance and whether they acquire interest on the disputed property through registered power of attorney executed by Jogeshwar Ram on 08/11/2000 in favour of Krishna Singh or not?
This issue is one of the main issues of the suit, on the basis of which other issues can be decided accordingly. Two facts arise in this issue, firstly, whether the plaintiffs have acquired right, title, interest and possession in the disputed property by way of inheritance or not. To answer this question, we need to peruse the evidence of the plaintiffs. It is an admitted fact that the father of the plaintiffs and brothers of the father of the plaintiffs, Baijnath Singh and Jogeshwar Ram, all three were siblings and this fact was also brought forward by the plaintiffs that Jogeshwar Ram died issueless and he was the joint owner of the disputed property, Exhibit-1 Khatian, with Algu Ram and before his death, Algu Ram had made a Power of Attorney in the name of Jogeshwar Ram and after that Algu Ram later died. It is pertinent to note here that 14 2025:JHHC:33501 Jogeshwar Ram also made a Power of Attorney, Exhibit A, before he died and made it in favour of plaintiff Krishna Singh. Now, the question arises here that who will inherit the disputed property. We have to look at the law in this regard. Title, interest and right in any property is created either by the Transfer of Property Act or a person can also give the property to another person by making a will. It is pertinent to note here that since Jogeshwar Ram died issueless and no will was made available by the plaintiff in the suit in the court, it becomes clear that Jogeshwar Ram did not make a will before he died, which would have made any testamentary heir to the property. Now, it is clear that in this regard, the Hindu Succession Act will apply in respect of the succession of the disputed property and according to the Hindu Succession Act, there are two classes of heirs, the heirs of the first class first inherit the property of the person died intestate and also the rule of law is that if the heirs of the first class are not available, the heirs of the second class acquire an interest in the property. It is clear from the evidence available here that the owner of this disputed property, Jogeshwar Ram, died issueless and without making a will, therefore, the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act will apply here and since this fact has come into evidence that Jogeshwar Ram died issueless and his wife has also died. Therefore, there is no heirs of first class. Therefore, the property would be distributed among the heirs of the second class and Jogeshwar Ram had three other brothers, in which the father of the plaintiffs, his brother Baijnath Singh, Defendant No.3 and another brother Taraknath are available as successors. Since the entire property is five acres and ten decimals of land, in which Algu Ram was also the joint owner, his share in this disputed property will be considered half, then the share of Jogeshwar Ram in the disputed property will be only on half of the property which will be 2 acres 55 decimals and the same property (two acres fifty five decimals) will have to be partitioned equally among the three brothers in which each brother will get one-third 15 2025:JHHC:33501 share. And for this reason, Baijnath Singh will get a share of 85 decimals under this disputed property and he will inherit one- third of this property and the transfer of his share of property which he has done is proper in the eyes of law.
In this issue, the question has also been raised as to whether the plaintiff acquired any interest in the disputed property through the registered power of attorney executed by Jogeshwar Ram on 08/11/2000 in favour of Krishna Singh or not?
In this regard, the law is very clear that the Power of Attorney does not create any interest, right and title, but it only permits to look after the property, litigation and representation in respect of the property. With this, neither the property can be transferred nor can it be accepted and after death of the person who made the power of attorney, its effect ends. For the creation of interest, right, and title, the only procedures prescribed for the transfer of property are donation, lease, sale, mortgage and exchange under the Transfer of Will or Property Act. Apart from this, no other mechanism is available under the law to acquire interest in the property. Therefore, the Power of Attorney only provides the basis of representation, it does not create any title, interest and right on the property. Therefore, the plaintiffs did not acquire any interest on the disputed property through the registered power of attorney executed by Jogeshwar Ram in favour of Krishna Singh, but they acquired the right on the property only by inheritance, so this issue is also decided against the plaintiff.
23. Issue No.11: - Whether the disputed property is the self- acquired property of Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram who are the uncles of the plaintiff or not?
This fact has come to light during the evidence that the Khatiyani Raiyat of the disputed property are Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram, who are uncles of the plaintiff and it is their own self acquired property on which there is no dispute and this fact 16 2025:JHHC:33501 has been admitted by both the parties. Therefore, this issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiff that this suit property is the self- acquired property of Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram and earlier also, the issue in which the fact is mentioned that the nature of this property is self-acquired and not ancestral confirms this fact. Therefore, this issue is also decided in favour of the plaintiff.
24. Issue No.12: - Whether Baijnath Singh has acquired any right, interest, title over the disputed property or not?
There can be no doubt about the fact that Baijnath Singh, who is Defendant No.3, was the brother of Jogeshwar Ram and since Jogeshwar Ram died issueless, i.e., he had no children, then Baijnath Singh, being his brother, also has a right over the property of his brother and on the basis of his share, he has a right over the property which cannot be terminated even though he lived separately from Jogeshwar Ram. In the eyes of law, if a person dies intestate, then the distribution of his property takes place under the Hindu Succession Act. Here, since Jogeshwar Ram died issueless and his wife has also died, who was class-1 heir, after this there is no class-1 heir in Banshawali (lineage) of Jogeshwar Ram, then we should distribute the aforesaid property to the heirs of class-2 as per Section-8 and 10 of the Succession Act. It is to be noted that Jogeshwar Ram has three brothers, one of whom is Baijnath Singh and this fact is accepted by both the parties, so he has as much right on this property as the other two brothers. This right of Baijnath cannot be terminated on the ground that he used to live away from his brother and visited Jogeshwar Ram only occasionally and had little relation with him. Every brother will have as much right on his brother's property as the other brothers. Here, the objection raised by the plaintiffs is that before his death, Jogeshwar Ram had made a power of attorney, marked as 'A', in favour of the plaintiffs, on which this court clarifies that that power of attorney does not create any interest, rights and title but only permits the plaintiffs 17 2025:JHHC:33501 as a representative to take care of the property, conduct litigation etc. It did not result in transfer of property in favour of the plaintiffs. Whatever rules of law are there for transfer of property, they are governed under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and there is no mention of power of attorney anywhere in it. Therefore, the Power of Attorney does not create any interest, right and title and after death of the person who executed it, it has no value and even if this is accepted, the question arises that the interests of other brothers of Krishna Singh, who are the other plaintiffs in this suit, will also be extinguished by the Power of Attorney (Exhibit-3). This is impossible in the eyes of law and a new dispute will arise among the plaintiffs. Therefore, in this regard, this Court also want to clarify that this Power of Attorney acts as unregistered will against the other, but it does not affect the heirs, because the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear in many of its judgments that every family shareholder acts as a trustee for each other and does not work to extinguish the right and interest of the other shareholders, because it is the duty of the trustee to protect the shares of other shareholders as a guardian and not to destroy the interest of the other shareholders. Here Baijnath Singh is a shareholder in his brother's property and his share cannot be terminated by this power of attorney, but his share should also be preserved by the plaintiffs and the law prescribes the duty to provide him his interest when demanded and it is clear from the above discussions that Baijnath Singh also has a share in this disputed property and section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act confers the right to transfer property to shareholders to the extent of his share. Therefore, Baijnath Singh, brother of Jogeshwar Ram, had the right to get a share in his brother's property as his brother and the law also gives him the right to transfer it as per his wish. Therefore, Baijnath Singh enjoys interest, title and right on the disputed property as per his share. Therefore, this argument is decided against the plaintiff.18
2025:JHHC:33501
25. Issue No.13 & 14: - Whether the registered Sale Deed No.1422 dated 3/3/2011 executed by the Defendant No. 2 in favour of the Defendant No.1 is forged, fabricated and void from the beginning and whether the Defendant No.1 has acquired any interest in the property or not?
Issue No.14: - Whether the Defendant No.4 had the right to execute the Sale Deed No. 5888 dated 10.11.2010 in favour of Defendant No.2 and whether the Defendant No.3 had the right to execute the power of attorney No. 1523 dated 02/11/10 in favour of Defendant No.4 or not?
Since both the issues are related to each other, both the issues are decided together for the sake of time and convenience. Since Baijnath Singh had a right to transfer property equal to his share and all transactions related to it would be considered as legal and this Court does not consider that all the sale deeds made after that right of transfer are void and forged, rather all these transactions in which the power of attorney, Exhibit A, and the sale deeds through which the property were sold have absolute value in the eyes of the law. Therefore, both these issues, are decided against the plaintiff.
26. Issue No.15: - Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought or not?
Since Baijnath Singh had the right to transfer the aforesaid property according to his share. Therefore, this court considers the transfer of the property to be valid and the court cannot grant the plaintiffs the reliefs sought by them, because the main issue has been decided against the plaintiffs.
17. Accordingly, the learned trial court decided Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 against the plaintiffs and Issue Nos.9 and 11 in favour of the plaintiffs and held that plaintiffs have completely failed to prove the suit in their favour and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get decree on the basis of the reliefs sought for and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.
192025:JHHC:33501
18. Arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs/appellants I. Jogeshwar Ram, Tarak Nath, Baij Nath and Balmiki are full brothers. Out of these four, only Baij Nath is alive. Plaintiffs are the sons of Tarak Nath.
II. Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram had self-acquired the suit property under Mouza Dobo, Khata No.9, P.S. Chandil, Plot No.1198 (part) measuring an area of 85 decimals. The land-in-question is the self-acquired property of Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram. Jogeshwar Ram is own uncle of the plaintiffs/appellants and Algu Ram was Sarhu of Jogeshwar Ram. Jogeshwar Ram died on 16.11.2000 and Algu Ram died on 20.1.1996, his wife Dukhni Devi died on 27.07.2001. Both Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram were issueless.
III. 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 Appellant No.1 and appointed him as representative and on that basis the appellant no. 1 is in possession of the suit property. IV. 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. V. The land-in-question was given to Lala Vivek (Defendant No.4) by Baij Nath Singh (Defendant No.3) through power of attorney and the same was sold to Vijay Kumar Sinha (Defendant No.2) vide Sale Deed No.5888 dated 10.11.2010 who sold the said land to the Defendant No.1 vide Sale Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011 (Deed-in-question).
VI. There was no partition of the suit property at all between Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram. The suit property was not the ancestral property of Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram and it was a self-acquired property by them and therefore, Algu Ram gave his entire land to Jogeshwar Ram.
VII. PW-1 Kokil Mahto has categorically stated that there was no partition between Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram and Plaintiff No.1 used to pay the rent of the land and he has seen the receipts.
202025:JHHC:33501 VIII. The key person Baij Nath Singh, who has given power of attorney of the suit property to Lala Vivek (Defendant No.4) has been examined as DW-1 and he has stated that he does not know as to how much land has come in his share. D.W. 1 further admitted that the property-in-question is the self-acquired property of Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram, but at the same time, he has deposed in his evidence at Para-37 that he and Tarkeshwar have shared half-half land of Jogeshwar Ram.
IX. DW-1 has himself admitted that after death of Jogeshwar Ram, his money lying in bank was paid to Plaintiff No.2 on indemnity bond of DW-1.
X. DW-4 Vijay Kumar Sinha has said that he has put signature on each and every sheet of Sale Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011 (Ext. B/1 to B/12).
XI. DW-5 Aditya Narayan Mahto has specifically stated that he is the representative of Defendant No.1 and he has purchased 3.40 acres of land and out of which 2.55 acres has been purchased through power given by Rameshwar Singh and 85 decimals (suit property) through power given by Baij Nath Singh. He further stated that there was no genealogy of Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram, and Baij Nath Singh's name was nowhere in the Khatiyan, nor any rent was paid by him to the Government.
XII. The learned trial court has decided the matter on the basis of presence of legal heirs of Jogeshwar Ram, since Baij Nath is his brother and he had right to possess the property being class-II legal heir as there was no class-I legal heir of Jogeshwar Ram. XIII. Though the learned trial court has been pleased to give its finding on Issue No.11 that the suit property is the self-acquired property of Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram and decided the issue in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants, but at the same time the learned court has not considered that self-acquired property can be given leaving all the legal heirs according to Hindu Succession Act.
212025:JHHC:33501 XIV. The owner of a self-acquired property can give it to another person as he has all rights to sell, gift or will and can bequeath it to anyone including a stranger.
XV. While dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, the learned trial court has not considered this aspect of self-acquired property.
19. Arguments of the Respondents I. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the judgement passed by the learned trial court is a well-reasoned judgement and it does not call for any interference.
II. There is a chain of transfer and the last purchaser (defendant no.1) is the second purchaser of the property. The defendant no.2 purchased the land-in-question from defendant no.3 through defendant no.4 (power of attorney). Defendant no.3 was holding 1/3rd of ½ share of total 5.1 acres of land, jointly held by Late Algu Ram and Late Jogeshwar Ram, both brothers-in-law. The defendant no.3 had sold exactly to the extent of his share. III. 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 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 entire 5.10 acres vested in favour of the plaintiffs.
IV. The property stood recorded in the name of Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram and there was no partition between the two; the ½ share of Jogeshwar Ram devolved upon his death on three brothers namely, Balmiki Singh, Tarak Nath Singh and Baij Nath Singh and consequently each one of them got 1/3rd share in ½ of the total property of 5.10 acres jointly held by Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram.
222025:JHHC:33501 V. Algu Ram expired on 20.01.1996 and his wife Dukhni Devi 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 expired earlier sometimes in the month of August, 2000.
VI. 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 ultimately to defendant no.1 through various transactions. The share of defendant no.3, Baij Nath Singh in the property of Jogeshwar Ram being his full brother stood transferred to the defendant no.1 through the transactions involved in this case. Consequently, the defendant no.1 got entire share of the property to the extent it belonged to Algu Ram plus 1/3rd share of the share of Jogeshwar Ram through the transactions involved in this case.
VII. 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.
VIII. The learned counsel 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.
IX. The learned counsel for the respondents 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.).23
2025:JHHC:33501 Findings of this Court.
20. The suit has been filed seeking a declaration that the deed of conveyance (sale deed no. 1422 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 02.11.2010 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. The suit land is a part of land recorded in the name of Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram who were Sahru. 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. No relief was sought in the plaint seeking declaration of right, title, interest or possession of the plaintiffs nor there was any prayer 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.
21. The suit was contested primarily of the ground that defendant no.3 had the right over the property being the legal heir and successor of Jogeshwar Ram to the extent of 1/3rd share being his full brother as Jogeshwar Ram and his wife died issueless leaving behind 3 full brothers and all the transactions are valid; the suit was bad for non-
242025:JHHC:33501 joinder of necessary parties as all the legal heirs and successors of Jogeshwar Ram as well as Algu Ram were not made party but it was not in dispute that the plaintiffs are the descendants of Jogeshwar Ram through his full brother Tarak Nath Singh . 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 nephew of Algu Ram. The property to the extent it belonged to Algu Ram is not the subject matter of dispute in this case. The sale deed executed prior to the impugned sale deed has not been challenged.
Points for determination
22. 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?
(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 plaintiff no.1 acquired exclusive right, title and interest over the suit land by virtue of Registered Power of Attorney dated 08.11.2000 executed by Jogeshwar Ram in favour of the Plaintiff no.1 -Krishna Singh?
(v) Whether Defendant No.3 has inherited any share of the property of Jogeshwar Ram after death of Jogeshwar Ram who died issueless?
(vi) Whether the Defendant No.3 had the right to execute the Sale Deed No. 5888 dated 10.11.2010 in favour of Defendant No.2?
(vii) Whether the registered Sale Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011 executed by the Defendant No. 2 in favour of the Defendant No.1 is forged, fabricated and void from 25 2025:JHHC:33501 the beginning and whether the Defendant No.1 has acquired any interest in the property?
23. In course of trial, the plaintiffs examined 07 witnesses to prove their case, who are as under:
PW-1 Sudama Singh Plaintiff No. 2 PW-2 Ram Naresh Singh
PW-3 Kokil Mahato
PW-4 Paras Nath Singh
PW-5 Jawahar Lal Singh
PW-6 Bhola Singh @ Sunil Kumar Plaintiff No. 3
Singh
PW-7 Barha Manjhi
24. PW-1 (Sudama Singh) is Plaintiff No.2 who filed his examination in chief on oath and supported his case as stated in the plaint. He also stated that Baijnath Singh (defendant no.3) had no papers of the suit land, nor had any right and interest over the suit land and hence transactions made by him or through power of attorney dated 02.11.2010 are illegal and are not legally binding on the plaintiffs. He stated that the plaintiffs are the owners of a total of 5.10 acres of land falling under Khata No.9 and 85 decimals of suit land also belong to them. The evidence of the witness supported the averments made in the plaint.
During cross-examination, he admitted that he and his brothers are plaintiffs in the case. He further admitted that Jogeshwar Ram were four brothers namely, Jogeshwar, Balmiki, Taraknath and Baijnath. Balmiki has died and he has three sons namely, Awadh Singh, Hiralal Singh and Jitendra Singh, but they are not parties in the suit. The disputed property belonged to Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram in equal share. Algu Ram was the Sarhu of Jogeshwar Ram. Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram had acquired 5 acres 10 decimals of land. The disputed land is situated at one place in which their house is constructed. Jogeshwar Ram had prepared a registered Power of Attorney in their favour in the name of 26 2025:JHHC:33501 Krishna Singh which has been filed in court and except the Power of Attorney, no other document was prepared by Jogeshwar Ram in their favour. He further admitted at Para-31 that the land was not mutated in their names. Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram used to reside together. He also admitted at Para-34 that Algu Ram were two brothers and stated that the name of Algu Ram's brother was Jhagru who died leaving behind two sons namely, Ramashray and Lal Bihari. Ramashray died leaving behind one son namely, Sunil Singh. The native village of Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram was Jagdishpur. He further admitted at Para-39 that the 'Panchnama' did not bear his signature and he was minor at that time, but Girja Singh, Parasnath Singh, Ram Naresh Singh and Srikant Singh were present and they are alive. The 'Panchnama' was not registered in the registry office and no application was filed for mutation on the basis of the 'Panchnama'. He had seen the 'Panchnama' in 2010 which was in possession of his elder brother. He further admitted at Para-43 that Baijnath (defendant no. 3) is his uncle and he was working in Tata Company and was residing in Adityapur LIG Flat. He also admitted that the suit has been filed for 85 decimals of land in Plot No.1198. He denied at Para-50 that Radha Krishna was the brother of Algu Ram, rather the name of the brother of Algu Ram was Jhagru. He denied that the disputed land is the share of Baijnath Singh, which was inherited by him from Jogeshwar Ram.
25. PW-2 (Ram Naresh Singh) filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that he knows the plaintiffs of the suit because his village is next to their village-Dobo. This witness has fully supported the case of the plaintiffs in his chief and disputed the claim of the defendant no.3 and consequently disputed the claim of the other defendants. During cross-examination, he admitted that Algu Ram alongwith his wife went to his ancestral village from Dobo in 1990. He further admitted that the 'Panchnama' was written by Ram Janam Singh in Hindi and Ram Janam had signed in it, but he does not know whether the said Punchnama was registered in the registration office or not. He also admitted that there was no signature or thumb impression of the wife of Algu Ram on the 'Panchnama'. He also admitted that while 27 2025:JHHC:33501 preparing the 'Panchnama', the head of the Panchayat of the village, the Sarpanch, the Gram Pradhan and the members were not called. He further admitted at Para-12 that the brother and nephew of Algu Ram were not called and made to sign on the Punchnama. The descendants of the other brothers of Baijnath Singh, brother of Jogeshwar Ram, also do not have their signatures or thumb impressions in the said 'Panchnama'. He further admitted that he has not seen the Power of Attorney and he is not a witness to it.
26. PW-3 (Kokil Mahato) filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that he lives with his family in his ancestral house in the neighbourhood of the plaintiffs and he knows them since their childhood. He stated that the plaintiffs are the owners of 05 acres and 10 decimals of land in Khata No.9 situated in his neighbourhood and they have been cultivating it for the last 50 years and the suit land measuring 85 decimals of land is a part of the said 5 acres 10 decimals of land in which the plaintiffs and their family have built a house and reside there. He further stated that the suit land was the self-acquired property of Late Algu Ram and Late Jogeshwar Ram and Jogeshwar Ram brought his nephews Krishna, Sudama and Bhola from his native village and gave them the rights and ownership of the land. He stated that 05 years before his death, Algu Ram had made a Punchnama before the punches giving the share of his land to Jogeshwar Ram and after death of Algu Ram, Jogeshwar Ram became the owner of entire 05 acres of land and he handed over the land to the plaintiffs during his lifetime. There was no contact between Baijnath Singh and Jogeshwar Ram. Since the land was the self-acquired land of Jogeshwar Ram, none of his brothers had ever come to the land and the plaintiffs were the only owners and possessors of the land which was given by Jogeshwar Ram himself. He had seen Jogeshwar Ram since beginning as he is a neighbour and after his death in the year 2000, the Shraddh Karma of Late Jogeshwar Ram was also performed by the plaintiffs and he was present there. He further stated that Baijnath Singh have no right to sell 85 decimals of land of the plaintiffs and he has done the same by fraud because neither he had any document, nor he was agent, nor Jogeshwar Ram had given him any 28 2025:JHHC:33501 right on the said land. Therefore, only the plaintiffs have the right on the land and the defendants have done fraud and sold the land among themselves, which is completely illegal and the document of sale and purchase of the defendants filed in the case by the plaintiffs is fit to be cancelled. During cross-examination, he admitted at Para-10 that Dobo Mouza is a large basti and he had come and settled there. He further admitted that the present suit is for 85 decimals of land, but he cannot tell the plot no. of the land. He also admitted that he had seen Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram. Algu Ram was the sarhu of Jogeshwar Ram and he had seen Algu Ram and his wife some 30 years back in their house. He had seen Jogeshwar Ram in the year 2000. Krishna Singh was present during the Shraddh karma of Jogeshwar Ram, but he had not seen others. He further admitted at Para-11 that he does not know whether any part of the disputed land of Jogeshwar Ram was transferred to Krishna Singh (Plaintiff) or whether there was any registered deed, gift deed or registered transfer of the land of Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram, but a Power of Attorney was executed. He was neither the witness in it, nor he has seen any paper of mutation in favour of the plaintiffs. He also admitted that there was no partition between Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram and Krishna Singh is paying rent of the disputed land.
27. PW-4 (Paras Nath Singh) filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that he knows both parties of the case. He further admitted that the Plaintiff No.1 Krishna Singh is his son-in-law and he used to visit the disputed land situated in Khata No.9 and Plot No.1198. The plaintiff are the owner and possessor of the disputed land. He further stated that Late Jogeshwar Ram and Late Algu Ram had acquired the land by earning money and it was registered in their names in the Khatian of 1964 and the land is not ancestral. Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram both died issueless. He further stated that Algu Ram made a Punchnama in presence of the Punches on 24.12.1990 and gave his share of land in Dobo Mouza to Jogeshwar Ram and his signature is also present on the said Punchnama and thereafter, Jogeshwar Ram acquired full ownership of the entire 5 acres and 10 decimals and before his death, he gave the ownership of the entire 5 acres 10 decimals to Krishnan 29 2025:JHHC:33501 Singh (plaintiff no.1) and his two brothers namely, Sudama and Bhola and made them the owners of the said land for sale and purchase. He further stated that he knows the disputed land measuring 85 decimals, which is within the total land of the plaintiffs, measuring 5 acres and 10 decimals. During the lifetime of Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram, the plaintiffs have been living in a house built on the land. Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram also used to live in the same house alongwith the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs used to take care of them and were the owners of the entire land and are in possession of it till date and they cultivate the land. He further stated that the defendants never went to the suit land and they have no relation with Algu Ram or Jogeshwar Ram and the plaintiffs are the owners of the disputed land and their claim is correct. He further stated that the defendants bought and sold the land among themselves using power of attorney and finally registered the land in the name of Aditya Mahato. Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011 is fake in which the defendant has written the boundary of the disputed plot in place of the boundary of the disputed land. He has been visiting the disputed land for more than 50 years. During cross-examination, he admitted at Para-16 that the total area of the suit land is 85 decimals. He also admitted at Para-17 that Krishna is his son-in-law. Baijnath Singh is the brother of Jogeshwar Ram. He admitted at Para-18 that Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram were related as Sarhu brothers (brothers in law). Jogeshwar Ram had four brothers whose names were Jogeshwar, Tarak Nath, Baijnath, but he does not know the name of one brother. He further admitted at para 20 that Punchnama was made in Dobo village on 24.12.1990. At the time of Punchnama, no ward member or any member of the Panchayat was present. Girija Singh of Dobo village was present.
28. PW-5 (Jawahar Lal Singh) filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that he knows both parties of the case. He further stated the case has been filed by Krishna Singh and his brothers namely, Sudama and Bhola against Aditya Mahato of Hi-Tech, Baijnath Singh, Vijay Kumar Sinha and Lala Vivek for 85 decimals land, Khata No.9, Mouza- Dobo. P.S.- Chandil. He further stated that the disputed land is a part of the total 5 acres 10 decimals land of Khata No.9 which was 30 2025:JHHC:33501 purchased by Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram who were brothers-in-law and it is jointly recorded in their names in the Khatian and it is not ancestral property. He further stated that Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram had never partitioned the land and the entire land is situated at one place in Dobo Basti and both of them had jointly built a house in the middle of the land and lived together and jointly did cultivation. He further stated that in 1990, Algu Ram prepared a Punchnama and made Jogeshwar Ram the owner of his entire land in Dobo village in presence of the punches and went to his ancestral village in Bihar with his wife in the same year and both husband and wife died there and Jogeshwar Ram became the owner of the entire land measuring 5 acres 10 decimals in Khata No.9. He further stated that while living in Dobo village, Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram had brought the sons of his brother Taraknath namely, Krishna Singh, Sudama and Bhola from his ancestral village Jagdishpur, Bihar since their childhood who used to look after the farm. Before his death, Jogeshwar Ram had registered a power of attorney and made them the sole owner of the land. In this way, Krishna Singh and his two brothers Sudam Singh and Bhola Singh are jointly the owners of the land of Khata No.9, Mouza- Dobo and they have been in possession of the land for the last 30 - 40 years without any hindrance till date. He further stated that in 2010, some persons conspired among themselves and tried to usurp the land of Krishna Singh and others through power of attorney. Baijnath Singh gave power of attorney of the disputed land to Lala Vivek and Rameshwar Singh wrote a false statement claiming himself to be the nephew of Late Algu Ram and gave power of attorney of about two and a half acres of land to Vijay Kumar Sinha and thereafter, Vijay Sinha and Lala Vivek bought and sold the same land to each other through the said power of attorney and thereafter, the main conspirator sold it in the name of Aditya Mahato of Hi-Tech Company. In this way, a document was prepared by forgery and one of those documents is Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011. The plaintiffs have filed the case to cancel it which is justified. He further stated that he knows Rameshwar Singh and Baijnath Singh. Rameshwar Singh is not the nephew of Late Algu Ram. The name of the brother of 31 2025:JHHC:33501 Algu Ram was Jhagru Singh and he has passed away. Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram died issueless and taking advantage of the same, Baijnath and Rameshwar prepared the above-mentioned document by making false Power of Attorney and finally the said 85 decimals of the disputed land was sold to Aditya Mahato by Vijay Sinha, which is illegal and deserves to be cancelled and the claim of the plaintiff to cancel Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011 is correct and the claim of the defendants is false. During cross-examination, he admitted at Para-13 that Jogeshwar, Balmiki, Tarak Nath and Baijnath were four brothers and Balmiki has three sons. He further admitted at Para-19 that no power of attorney was made by Jogeshwar Ram in his presence. He denied at Para-27 that Radhakrishna was the brother of Algu Ram.
29. PW-6 (Bhola Singh @ Sunil Kumar Singh) filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that he is Plaintiff No.3 in the suit which has been filed mainly against the attempt of Aditya Narayan Mahato, who is an agent of Hi-Tech Company owned by R.K. Agarwal in connection with the land measuring 85 decimals, Plot No.1198 situated in Village- Dobo, Thana Chandil, District- Seraikella- Kharsawan, by fraudulently issuing Sale Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011. Sale Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011 is illegal and a fake document prepared through a conspiracy by repeatedly transferring it among themselves within a year through Power of attorney. He further stated that Aditya Mahato got a power of attorney from Defendant No.3 in the year 2010 in the name of Lala Vivek and declaring the right to sell it. Through the same power Lala Vivek gave it to Vijay Kumar Sinha in the year 2010 itself and again Vijay Sinha, under conspiracy, sold that land to Defendant No.1. Defendant no.3 neither had any papers of the suit land, nor had any interest or share in the suit land, hence the transfer made by him through power of attorney no. 1523 dated 2.11.2010 is illegal and legally not binding on the plaintiffs. He further stated that the plaintiffs are the owners of 5.10 acres of land under Khata No.9 which is recorded since 1964 jointly in the name of Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram which was their self-acquired property. He further stated that since childhood Jogeshwar Ram brought him and his elder brothers Krishna 32 2025:JHHC:33501 Singh and Bhola Singh from the village and kept them in his house in Dobo Basti and since then, they have been living in that house and cultivating the said land. All the land is situated at one place and their house is built in the middle of it in which all three brothers have been living. In the same house Late Algu and Late Jogeshwar used to live. Both the persons were sarhu brothers and were joint owners of the land. The land was not ancestral and therefore, before his death, Algu Ram, on 24.12.1990, by Punchnama, transferred the land of his share to Jogeshwar and made him the owner and he went to his village Jagdispur, District- Bhojpur, Bihar where he died on 20.01.1996. His wife also died there. Similarly, before his death on 16.11.2000, Jogeshwar Ram, on 08.11.2000, gave the entire land to Krishna Singh through registered power of attorney, because he was the owner of the land of Algu Ram since 1990 by Punchnama. The land is in their possession since 1998 which was the share of Late Algu Ram. He further stated that except the plaintiffs, Baijnath Singh or none else is the successor of the land of Late Jogeshwar Ram. He further admitted that the disputed land is 85 decimals and Aditya Narayan Mahato has purchased 2.55 acres of their land by fraud. Total 6 persons are involved in the fraud including Aditya Mahato, Baijnath Singh, Rameshwar Singh, Lala Vivek, Vijay Kumar Sinha and Dilip Singhdeo of Hitech Company.
30. PW-7 (Barha Manjhi) filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that he knows the plaintiffs of the case. The plaintiffs have filed this suit against Aditya Mahto and others including Baijnath Singh, Lala Vivek and Vijay Sinha for 85 decimals, as they have committed fraud and sold the suit land among themselves without any authority. He further stated that the plaintiffs were kept by Jogeshwar Ram since their childhood and the plaintiffs are the owners of the land of Algu Ram. Before death of Late Jogeshwar Ram, the plaintiffs had been cultivating on the said land and he knows them since their childhood, for more than 40 years and the land belongs to them. The plaintiffs have filed the Khatiyan of the land of Khata No.9 in which the land is jointly registered in the names of Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram. He exhibited the Khatiyan as Exhibit-1. He further stated that the plaintiffs have filed Sale 33 2025:JHHC:33501 Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011 purchased from Vijay Sinha in the name of Aditya Mahato by Hitech Company. He exhibited Sale Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011 as Exhibit-2. During cross-examination, he admitted that he has seen the sale deed, but he has not read it and he has also seen the Khatian written in Hindi which is recorded in the names of Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram. Both were Sarhu and were in possession of the land and one house is also constructed over the land in which they were residing.
31. The plaintiffs exhibited the following documents:
Exhibit-1 Khatian
Exhibit-2 Sale Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011
Exhibit-3 C.C. of General Power of Attorney
executed by Sudama Singh and Bhola
Singh in favour of Krishna Singh
Exhibit-4 Voter ID cards of Parvati Devi and
Jogeshwar Ram
Exhibit-5 to 5/5 Rent Receipts
Exhibit-6 Attested photocopy of death certificate of
Algu Ram
Exhibit-6/1 Attested photocopy of death certificate of
Dukhni Devi
Exhibit-6/2 Attested photocopy of death certificate of
Jogeshwar Singh
Exhibit-6/3 Attested copy of death certificate of
Parvati Devi
Exhibit-7 Letter of Indemnity singed by Baijnath
Singh and Sudama Singh
Exhibit-8 Power of Attorney executed by Jogeshwar
Ram in favour of Krishna Singh
Exhibit-9 Power of Attorney executed by Algu Ram
in favour of Jogeshwar Ram.
32. The defendants examined 05 witnesses, who are as under:
DW-1 Baij Nath Singh Defendant No.3
DW-2 Dukhu Sahu
DW-3 Prashant Kumar Mandal
DW-4 Vijay Kumar Sinha Defendant No.2
DW-5 Aditya Narayan Mahato Representative of
Defendant No.1
34
2025:JHHC:33501
33. DW-1 (Baij Nath Singh) filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that he is Defendant No.3 in the suit and he has filed a joint written statement alongwith Defendant No.2 and 4. He knows the plaintiffs who are sons of his elder brother Taraknath and also know the Defendant No.1 Hitech Heritage Company Limited. The disputed land is situated in Mouza Dobo, Police Station-Chandil Khata No.9, part of Plot No.1198, area 85 decimals. Late Jogeshwar Ram was his elder brother. They were four brothers namely, Balmiki Singh, Jogeshwar Ram, Taraknath and himself. Balmiki Singh died first leaving behind his three sons, Avadh Singh, Hiralal Singh and Jitendra Singh as his sole heirs. Jogeshwar Ram died issueless in the year 2000 and his wife Parvati Devi had died before Jogeshwar Ram. Taraknath died on 26.01.2015 leaving behind his three sons, Krishna Singh, Sudama and Bhola Singh as his sole heirs, who are the plaintiffs in the suit. He further stated that he has seen Algu Ram and his wife Dukhni Devi. Algu Ram was the brother-in-law of his elder brother Jogeshwar Ram. Algu Ram died issueless in the year 1996 and he left behind his wife Dukhni Devi as his sole heir. Dukhni Devi died issueless in the year 2001. Algu Ram had only one full brother namely, Radhakrishna Singh and both of them were sons of Devnath Singh. He had seen Devnath Singh and he used to go to his house to invite him and he also used to come to his house. Even after death of Devnath Singh, he used to go to the house of Algu Ram and Radha Krishna and they also used to come to his house. Algu Ram did not have any brother named Jhagru Singh. Radha Krishna Singh died leaving his only son Rameshwar Singh as his sole heir and successor. Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram had jointly acquired 15 bigha 06 katha land in Mouza-Dobo, Thana-Chandil and the said land was registered in their names under Khata No.9 in the Revisional Survey Settlement. In Khata No.9, the name of Jogeshwar Ram's father is written as Devnath Ram, which is wrong, whereas the name of the father of Jogeshwar, Baijnath, Taraknath and Balmiki was Sukhari Singh. The name of Algu Ram's father was Devnath Singh. Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram had partitioned the land of Khata No.9 in equal shares among themselves and in the said partition 2.55 acres of land including the house came in 35 2025:JHHC:33501 the share of Algu Ram and the remaining half share of land including a part of the house went to the share of Jogeshwar Ram. After death of Algu Ram, his share of land was inherited by his wife Dukhni Devi. After death of Dukhni Devi, the property was inherited by Algu Ram's brother Radha Krishna. The disputed land is a part of the said half share of land received by Jogeshwar Ram in the partition. After death of Jogeshwar Ram, he and Taraknath inherited the half share received by him in the partition in Khata No.9, since Jogeshwar Ram died issueless and his wife had also died before his death and his eldest brother Balmiki Singh had also died during his lifetime. After death of Jogeshwar Ram, his share of land was partitioned equally between him and his elder brother Taraknath and in the said partition, the disputed land and some other land came in his share and he used to possess it. He further stated that in order to take care of the disputed land in his share of land and to sell it etc., he appointed Defendant No.4 Lala Vivek Prasad as his attorney through a registered General Power of Attorney Deed No. IV- 1523 dated 02.11.2010. He identified the General Power of Attorney executed by him. He further stated that on the strength of the said registered general power of attorney, his attorney, Defendant No.4 Lala Vivek Prasad, sold the disputed land measuring 85 decimals to Defendant No.2 Vijay Kumar Sinha through registered Deed No.5888 dated 10.11.2010 and also took possession of the land. Thereafter the defendant Vijay Kumar Sinha, after getting possession of the said land, got it transferred in his name and used to possess it by paying rent to the Government. The Defendant No.2 Vijay Kumar Sinha sold the said disputed 85 decimals of land to the Defendant No.1 Hi-Tech Heritage Company Limited through a registered Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011, by taking the fair price of the land from them and took possession of the land. Defendant No.1, after purchasing the said land, has been getting physical possession of the same by getting the land transferred in its name at the Zonal Office, Chandil and by paying rent to the Government. He further stated that the plaintiffs neither ever had, nor do they have now any title, right or interference in any part of the disputed land. The statement of the plaintiffs that the entire land of Khata 36 2025:JHHC:33501 No.9 belonged to Jogeshwar Ram and after his death, the plaintiffs received the said land and they are the sole owners and occupants of the said land is absolutely false and incorrect. The statement of the plaintiffs that Algu Ram had given his share of land in Khata No.9 to Jogeshwar Ram through Punchnama is absolutely false and if any such Punchnama is produced by the plaintiffs in the suit, those are forged and false documents prepared to grab the land. The statement of the plaintiffs that he had no title, right or interference on the disputed land is absolutely false. The certified true copy of the registered sale deed of Defendant No.1 has been filed on behalf of the defendants and it is legally valid and it is a public document. The registered general power of attorney executed by me and the deed executed in the name of defendant Lala Vivek Prasad and the deed executed by Lala Vivek Prasad in favour of the defendant Hi-Tech Heritage Company are all legally valid deeds. The claim of the plaintiffs on the disputed land in the suit is absolutely baseless and false and the statements made by them in the plaint and the cause of action of the suit are absolutely false and fabricated and they have no right to file this suit. At the time of filing this suit, Taraknath Singh was alive and the plaintiffs had no right to file this suit. This false suit has been filed by the plaintiffs by hiding the true facts and making false claims on the disputed land and all the documents presented by them are false, untrue and fabricated. During cross-examination, he admitted that the registered general power of attorney is the original power of attorney and it bears his signature on each page, which he recognizes and it bears the signatures of both witnesses Rameshwar Singh and Sugriv Singh. He exhibited the general power of attorney as Exhibit-A (with objection). He admitted at Para-35 that the power of attorney which is marked as Exhibit-A does not mention the boundary. He also admitted at Para-38 that Taraknath's son Krishna, Sudama and Bhola were brought by Jogeshwar Ram to the same house after 1958, but again he said that they were brought after 1998, but he does not remember the year. Krishna Singh lives there and Bhola and Sudama keep coming and going from the village. Krishna cultivates the land around and in the north-east of the house in Khata No.9. The river is in 37 2025:JHHC:33501 the south direction. He admitted at Para-39 that at the time of giving power of attorney, he did not have any papers of Khata No.9. Algu Ram and his wife died in the house of Khata No.9. Algu Ram and his wife did not leave from here. He further admitted that after death of Jogeshwar Ram and his wife, they had a joint account in Central Bank of India, Sonari Branch, in which Rs.7091.37/- was deposited and he has signed his indemnity bond as security for payment of that amount in favour of Sudama Singh, whom he knows. He further admitted that he did not pay any land revenue for that land during Jogeshwar Ram's lifetime and after his death till 2010. After 2010, he sold the land from his share. Vijay Kumar Sinha used to pay land revenue. Vijay Sinha had bought land from Lala Vivek and in 2011, Vijay Sinha sold the land to Hitech Company. Lala Vivek had bought 1 acre 50 decimals of land from Vijay Sinha and sold it to Hitech Company which was also under Khata No.9. He further admitted that he never cultivated that land.
34. DW-2 (Dukhu Sahu) filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that he knows the defendants in the suit. He further stated that the registered Sale Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011 was prepared before him by advocate Shri Lala Vivek Prasad as per the statement of seller Vijay Kumar Sinha. He exhibited Sale Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011 as Exhibit-B. During his cross-examination, he admitted that he has gone to the disputed land only once in 2010.
35. DW-3 (Prashant Kumar Mandal) filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit and he exhibited the Rent Receipt No.026759 dated 29.12.2014, year: 2013-14 in the handwriting and signature of Halka Karamchari, Rajeshwar Pandit as Exhibit-C (with objection). During cross-examination, he admitted that the rent receipt was not issued in his presence.
36. DW-4 (Vijay Kumar Sinha) filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that he is Defendant No.2 in the case and he has filed a joint written statement in the case alongwith Defendant Nos.3 and 4. He further stated that he knows both parties. The disputed land is situated in Mouza-Dobo, Police Station-Chandil, new Khata No.9, Plot No.1198 (part), area is 85 decimals. The entire land of new Khata No.9 of Mouza-
382025:JHHC:33501 Dobo, Thana-Chandil belonged to Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram. Both of them were brothers-in-law and both had equal half share in the said land and the said Khatian was registered in the name of both in the Khatian. Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram had partitioned the land of Khata No.9 in equal shares among themselves and used to possess the land of their respective shares separately. The disputed land had come in the share of Jogeshwar Ram in the said mutual partition. Jogeshwar Ram died issueless and his wife had died before him. After death of Jogeshwar Ram, the disputed land in Khata No.9 and the half share of land received by Jogeshwar Ram in the partition was inherited by his brother Taraknath Singh and Baijnath Singh and they started interfering in it. Thereafter the said land of Jogeshwar Ram was partitioned equally by both the brothers and the disputed land and some other land came in the share of Baijnath Singh and he used to possess it. Baijnath Singh was facing inconvenience in taking proper care and in selling of the disputed land and his other portions of land and so he appointed the defendant, Lala Vivek Prasad as his attorney for the said land through a registered general power of attorney dated 02.11.2010. On the strength of the said registered general power of attorney, Lala Vivek Prasad sold the disputed land to him by registered deed no.5888, dated 10.11.2010 for a fair price and also gave possession of the said land and after getting possession of the land, he got the said land transferred in his name at the Zonal Office, Chandil and continued to have possession of the said land. While being in possession of the disputed land, he sold the said disputed 85 decimals land purchased from Defendant No.1, Hi-tech Heritage Company Limited through registered Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011 after receiving a fair price from him and also gave possession of the land to the said defendant and since then the said Defendant No.1 has been in possession of the said land. After purchasing the disputed land, Defendant No.1 has been paying land revenue to the government by getting the land transferred in his name in the Zonal Office, Chandil. The said registered deed executed by him in favour of Defendant No.1, Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011 has been filed in the suit and also certified. It has his signature. Jogeshwar Ram never received the half 39 2025:JHHC:33501 part of land belonging to Algu Ram in Khata No.9 and after the mutual partition, Jogeshwar Ram had no title, right or interference in the said half part. He further stated that the plaintiffs never inherited the disputed land and they never had any title, right or interference over it, nor do they have any title or interference over it now and the claim of the plaintiffs in this suit regarding the disputed land is absolutely false and fabricated. He claimed that the registered general power of attorney dated 02.11.2010 and the registered Deed No. 5888, dated 10.11.2010 executed in his favour and Sale Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011 executed by him in favour of Defendant No.1, Hitech Heritage Company are all legally valid pleas. He exhibited his signature on Sale Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011 as Exhibit-B/1 and the signature of the vendor as Exhibit-B/2. He also exhibited Sale Deed No.5888 dated 10.11.2010 as Exhibit-C (with objection). During cross-examination, he admitted that he and Lala Vivek are advocates and he has sold 55 decimals of land of Khata No.9 to Lala Vivek and he has purchased 85 decimals of land from Lala Vivek.
37. DW-5 (Aditya Narayan Mahato) filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that he is the GM of Defendant No.1 Hitech Heritage Company Limited and he is representing the company as authorized representative in the suit and he is giving testimony by filing affidavit on behalf of the said defendant in this suit. A written statement has been filed on behalf of Defendant No.1 and he has full knowledge of the case of the said defendant. The Defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 have also filed separate written statements in the suit and have supported the claim of Defendant No.1 on the disputed land. The disputed land is situated in Mouza-Dobo, Police Station- Chandil, Khata No.9, Plot No.1198, area of 85 decimals. The entire land of Khata No.9 of Mouza-Dobo belonged to Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram and both were brothers-in-law. Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram had partitioned the land of Khata No.9 into equal shares among themselves and were enjoying their respective shares of the land separately. In the said mutual partition, the disputed land was in the share of Jogeshwar Ram. Before death of Jogeshwar Ram, his wife had died. Jogeshwar Ram had four brothers namely, 40 2025:JHHC:33501 Balmiki Singh, Jogeshwar Ram, Taraknath and Baijnath Singh - Defendant No.3, out of which Balmiki Singh died before Jogeshwar Ram. Jogeshwar Ram died issueless and after his death, half share including the disputed land received by him in partition in Khata No.9 was transferred to the father of the plaintiffs, Taraknath Singh and Defendant No.3 - Baijnath Singh. Thereafter, Taraknath Singh and Baijnath Singh partitioned the said share of property of Jogeshwar Ram in equal shares among themselves and in the said partition, the disputed land and other land fell in the share of Baijnath Singh and he continued to enjoy and interfere in the same as per his right. Defendant No.3 Baijnath Singh, being in possession of the disputed land and his other share of land, appointed Defendant No.4 Lala Vivek Prasad as his attorney through a registered general power of attorney dated 02.11.2010. Thereafter Defendant No.4 Lala Vivek Prasad, on the strength of a general power of attorney, sold the entire disputed land to Defendant No.2 Vijay Kumar Sinha by registered Deed No.5888 dated 10.11.2010 and gave him possession thereof and after purchasing it, Defendant No.2, after getting possession, also got the said land transferred in his name at the Anchal Office, Chandil. Defendant No.2 Vijay Kumar Sinha sold his purchased disputed 85 decimals land to Defendant No.1 Hitech Heritage Company by registered Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011 for the reasonable price of the land and also gave possession of the land. In the suit, he represented Defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 after purchasing the disputed land, got physical possession of the same and got it transferred in his name in the Zonal Office, Chandil and transferred it to the Government. The plaintiffs never had any title or possession in any part of the disputed land, nor does they have it now. The statement of the plaintiffs that Algu Ram had given his share of land in Khata No.9 to Jogeshwar Ram through Punchnama and thus Jogeshwar Ram had become the owner of the entire land in Khata No.9 is absolutely false and the Punchnama is fake. The statement of the plaintiffs that after death of Jogeshwar Ram, the entire land of Khata No.9 has been acquired by them and they are the sole owners of that land, is absolutely false. Taraknath Singh died on 41 2025:JHHC:33501 26.01.2015 and hence in the year 2012, the plaintiffs had no right to file this suit since Taraknath Singh was alive at that time. The claim of the plaintiffs on the disputed land in this suit is wholly false and the cause of action mentioned by them in the plaint is wholly concocted and false. The claim of Defendant No.1 on the disputed land is correct and the plea of Defendant No.1 and Vijay Kumar Sinha as well as the general power of attorney executed by Defendant No.3 are all legally valid. During cross-examination, he admitted that in this case, Exhibit-B Sale Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011 bears his signature on pages 9, 10 and 11 and he exhibited his signatures as Exhibit-B/13, B/14 and B/15 respectively. During cross-examination, he admitted that he is a representative of Defendant No.1 Hitech Heritage Company and he had purchased 85 decimals of land from Defendant No. 2, a part of Khata No.9, Village Dobo. Under Khata No.9, he has purchased land from three persons named Dilip Kumar Singhdev and Lala Vivek Prasad and Vijay Kumar Sinha as a representative of Hitech Company in the name of the company. This company is working in village Dobo, Thana-Chandil since the year 2008. The company started the work of purchasing land there from the year 2008. The company did not do any project, only purchased land. Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram lived in a house built on the land of Khata No.9 and did cultivation separately. Jogeshwar's brother Baijnath told that both of them did cultivation separately. No paper proof was given that they did cultivation separately, they told verbally in 2010. Baijnath Singh of Adityapur told him this at his residence. In 2010 it was ascertained that Algu Ram and Jogeshwar were doing cultivation separately and Baijnath Singh told that they lived in Adityapur itself. In Khata No.9, he has purchased a total of 3 acres 40 decimals land as a representative of Hitech Company. The disputed land situated in Khata No.9 has the names of Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram jointly recorded in the Khatian. Both of them died issueless and the power of attorney given to Lala Vivek and Vijay Sinha does not mention the genealogy of the two and the names of Rameshwar and Baijnath were not recorded anywhere in the Khatian and neither was there any receipt of land revenue paid to the government in their name.
422025:JHHC:33501
38. The defendants exhibited the following documents:
Exhibit-A General power of attorney No. 1523
Exhibit-B Sale Deed No.1422 by Defendant witness
No. 2
Exhibit-B/1 to Sale Deed No.1422 signed and verified by B/15 witness No. 4 Exhibit-C Land Revenue receipt No. 026759 Exhibit-D Sale Deed No. 5888 Exhibit-E Correction slip in Mutation Case No. 952/2010-2011 Exhibit-E/A Correction slip in Mutation Case No. 1388/2011-2012 Exhibit-F Verified copy of order sheet of Demarcation Case No. 01/2012-2013 Exhibit-F/A Certified copy of order sheet of mutation case No. 1388/11-12 Exhibit-G Verified copy of R.S. Khata No.9, Mouza Dobo
39. The suit property is 85 decimals of land which is a portion of 5.10 acres in khata no. 9 which originally belonged to Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram, both of them died issueless. The plaintiffs are the sons of brother of Jogeshwar Ram, namely, Tarak Nath and defendant no.3 is also the brother of Jogeshwar Ram who has sold the suit property.
40. 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. Algu Ram had executed a 'Panchnama' with respect to his share of the entire property in favour of Jogeshwar Ram on 24.12.1990 giving him absolute right and ownership of his share of land. 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 plaintiff no.1 and appointed him as his representative and on that basis, plaintiff no.1 came in possession of the entire property of 5.10 acres. After death of Jogeshwar Ram, the plaintiffs are in possession of the entire land of 43 2025:JHHC:33501 Khata no.9 and looking after the same and have absolute right, title, interest and possession continuously.
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.5888 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.5888 dated 10.11.2010. The case is that the defendant no.3 had no right to execute the sale deed in connection with the suit property and consequently all the transactions including subsequent sale deed dated 03.03.2011 in connection with the same property do not exist at all and are fit to be declared as forged, fabricated, without consideration and void-ab-initio and the Defendant No.1 has not acquired any interest in the suit property.
41. On the other hand, the case of the defendants/respondents 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 and Jogeshwar Ram. All the legal heirs of Jogeshwar Ram including the sons of Balmiki Singh are the necessary parties to the suit. The legal heirs of Algu Ram were also necessary parties to the suit. 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 alleged power of attorney dated 08.11.2000 executed by Jogeshwar Ram in favour of the plaintiff no.1, 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 son namely, Rameshwar Singh came in exclusive possession of the property. 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 44 2025:JHHC:33501 and after his death, it devolved upon his son 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' dated 24.12.1990, by which Algu Ram allegedly allocated his share to Jogeshwar Ram, and the 'power of attorney' dated 08.11.2000 allegedly executed by Jogeshwar Ram in favour of plaintiff no. 1 are forged and fabricated. Further, no property can be transferred by unregistered 'Panchnama'.
42. Thus, it has to be determined as to whether the plaintiff no.1 was the exclusive owner of the entire share of Jogeshwar Ram, including the suit property, by virtue of the registered power of attorney dated 08.11.2000?
And if the answer to this question is against the plaintiffs, further question would be-
Whether Defendant No.3, being the brother of Jogeshwar Ram, has inherited any share of the property of Jogeshwar Ram [died issueless], and whether the sale by defendant no.3 with respect to such share, is valid?
43. 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.1422 dated 03.03.2011 and also Sale Deed No.5888 dated 10.11.2010. The Sale Deed No.5888 dated 10.11.2010 was executed by Defendant No.4 in favour of Defendant No.2 and Sale Deed No.1422 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.5888 dated 10.11.2010 was not specifically challenged in the prayer of the suit.
44. The undisputed facts of the case are as under:
(i) Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram had jointly acquired, owned and possessed 5 acres and 10 decimals of land bearing Plot Nos.1198, 1199, 1204, 1205 and 1206 in Khata No.9 situated under Mouza- Dobo, Thana No.331, P.S.- Chandil, District- Seraikella-Kharsawan under Sub-Registry Office-
Seraikella and after mutation, the entire land of Khata No.9 was jointly recorded in their names in the Survey Khatian of 1964.
452025:JHHC:33501
(ii) The suit land measuring 85 decimals in Plot No.1198 (Part) is a part of the land under the said Khata No.9 jointly acquired by Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram. The plaintiffs paid rent to the Government regularly till 2011.
(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) Algu Ram was the brother-in-law (Sarhu) of Jogeshwar Ram. Jogeshwar Ram was the own uncle of the plaintiffs and own brother of Baijnath Singh (Defendant No.3).
(v) The Defendant No.3 (Baijnath Singh) being the brother of late Jogeshwar Ram executed General Power of Attorney Deed No. IV-1523 dated 02.11.2010 in favour of the Defendant No.4 (Lala Vivek Prasad) for 85 decimals of land in Plot No.1198 (Part) which is the suit land.
(vi) Thereafter, on the strength of the said registered General Power of Attorney, Defendant No.4 Lala Vivek Prasad sold the suit land to Defendant No.2 (Vijay Kumar Sinha) through registered Deed No.5888 dated 10.11.2010.
(vii) Thereafter, the Defendant No.2 Vijay Kumar Sinha sold the suit land to the Defendant No.1 (M/s Hi-Tech Heritage Limited represented by Aditya Narayan Mahato) through registered Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011.
Point of determination no. (i)
45. The learned trial court has held that the suit was not maintainable in the present form as the main issues were decided against the plaintiffs.
46. 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 in Khata no.9 stood recorded in the name of Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram and both died issueless and they were Sarhu bhai (brothers in law) and it was their self- acquired property. The plaintiffs claimed that Algu Ram had transferred 46 2025:JHHC:33501 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 5.10 acres 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. On this basis and primarily on the basis of power of attorney dated 08.11.2000 executed by Jogeshwar Ram, the plaintiff no.1 claimed right, title and possession of the entire 5.10 acres.
47. 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 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 nor any declaration has been sought that it is null and void. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement 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, 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.
472025:JHHC:33501
48. In the present case the fulcrum of the dispute is as to whether plaintiff no.1 was the exclusive owner of the property of Jogeshwar Ram or whether Defendant No.3 had also inherited a share of the property of Jogeshwar Ram.
49. 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 Jogeshwar Ram on the sole point that defendant no.3 had no right as the property exclusively belonged to the plaintiff no.1 by virtue of registered power of attorney dated 08.11.2000 executed by Jogeshwar Ram and hence defendant no.3 could not claim inheritance 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 the parties joined issue and led evidence on the point and the learned trial court has held that Defendant no. 3 has 1/3rd share in the ½ share of Jogeshwar Ram in the entire property of 5.10 acres originally belonging to Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram. Accordingly, it is held that the suit cannot be said to be not maintainable in absence of specific challenge to the previous sale deed of the year 2010 executed by the defendant no.3 in favour of the defendant no.2 through the power of attorney -defendant no.4.
50. The cause of action arose when the defendant no.1 and 2 threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs on 30.06.2012 and plaintiffs received notice on 13.06.2012 from the Circle Office, Chandil seeking to demarcate the land. 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.
51. This Court finds that the right of the plaintiffs was threatened at the instance of the defendants and the defendant no.1 had also taken steps for demarcation of the property for which notice was issued to the 48 2025:JHHC:33501 plaintiffs in demarcation case no. 1 of 2012-13 by the circle officer. 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.
52. The learned trial court erred in holding that the suit was not maintainable and such finding cannot be sustained in law. The point for determination no.(i) is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants and against the defendants-respondents. Point of determination no. (ii)
53. The plaint reveals that the plaintiffs did not seek any declaration of their title over the suit property. However, the plaintiffs, particularly the plaintiff no.1 claimed the entire 5.10 acres jointly owned by Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram and they had challenged the right of the defendant no. 3 to deal with the share of the property of Late Jogeshwar Ram. It is not in dispute that both Jogeshwar Ram and Algu Ram died issueless. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant no. 3 (brother of Jogeshwar Ram) did not inherit any property from Jogeshwar Ram (died issueless) as Jogeshwar Ram had executed power of attorney dated 8.11.2000 (exhibit-8) only in favour of the plaintiff no.1 relating to the entire 5.10 acres as earlier, Algu Ram had transferred his ½ share to Jogeshwar Ram by Punchnama dated 24.12.1990. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant no.3 could not have inherited any property from Jogeshwar Ram and had no title over the share of Jogeshwar Ram which could be sold by defendant no.3. As mentioned above , the fulcrum of the case is as to whether plaintiff no.1 was the exclusive owner of the property of Jogeshwar Ram or whether Defendant No.3 had also inherited a share of the property of Jogeshwar Ram.
54. The plaintiffs questioned the inheritance claimed by the defendant no.3 from his full brother Jogeshwar Ram with respect to the suit property and also questioned the power of attorney executed by the defendant no.3 in favour of Lala Vivek Prasad (defendant no.4) with respect to the suit property. It was mentioned in the power of attorney executed by defendant no.3 in favour of the defendant no.4 that after 49 2025:JHHC:33501 death of Jogeshwar Ram, his property was equally partitioned amongst three brothers namely, Balmiki Singh, Tarak Nath Singh and Baijnath Singh and the defendant no.4 was empowered through the power of attorney to deal with share of the defendant no.3. However, Balmiki Singh (full brother of Jogeshwar Ram) or his legal heirs and successors were not made party in the suit. Even the father of the plaintiffs-Tarak Nath Singh (brother of Jogeshwar Ram), who was alive at the time of filing of the suit, was also not made party. The genealogy of the family of Jogeshwar Ram is not in dispute. This was apparently on account of the fact that the plaintiff no.1 claimed the entire property by virtue of power of attorney dated 08.11.2000 executed by Jogeshwar Ram exclusively in his favour.
55. This court is of the considered view that in a suit seeking to adjudicate upon claim of inheritance of 1/3rd property of Jogeshwar Ram by the defendant no.3 and the consequent sale deed executed by the defendant no 3 through his attorney (defendant no 4), all the legal heirs and successors of Jogeshwar Ram were necessary parties to the suit. Thus, the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The learned trial court has rightly held that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the plaintiffs' father who was alive. This court is further of the view that even the branch of the third brother of Jogeshwar Ram, namely, Balmiki Singh, were also necessary parties in the suit. The defendants had rightly raised the point that the suit was bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, this issue is decided against the plaintiffs.
56. The point of determination no. (ii) is decided against the appellants (plaintiffs) and in favour of the respondents (defendants). Point of determination no. (iii)
57. 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 the trial court's records received in this case 50 2025:JHHC:33501 reveal that it was exhibited with objection in original suit No. 46 of 2012 filed by the same plaintiffs 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 of Jogeshwar Ram by way of inheritance as Jogeshwar Ram died issueless and plaintiffs were his nephew.
58. The consequence of 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.
59. The plaintiffs have neither sought declaration of their title nor sought cancellation of the registered sale-deed no. 1422 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 that the defendant no.3 had no right to sell the suit property as the defendant no.3 did not have the title and possession. Since the plaintiffs claimed to be in possession, they did not even seek any relief of recovery of possession of the suit property.
60. In the 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 23 rd 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) ...................................................51
2025:JHHC:33501 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:
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 someone who is not in existence, and for whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee."
61. 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.
62. 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 52 2025:JHHC:33501 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 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 38 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 53 2025:JHHC:33501 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 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 54 2025:JHHC:33501 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.
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.
38. Courts have ample inherent powers and indeed it is their duty to shape their declaration in such a way that they may operate to afford the relief which the justice of the case requires. Section 34 of the Act, 1963 is not exhaustive of the cases in which a declaratory decree may be made and the courts have power to grant such a decree independently of the requirements of the Section. Section 34 merely gives statutory recognition to a well- recognised type of declaratory relief and subjects it to a limitation, but it cannot be deemed to exhaust every kind of declaratory relief or to circumscribe the jurisdiction of courts to give declarations of right in appropriate cases falling outside Section 34. The circumstances in which a declaratory decree under Section 34 should be awarded is a matter of discretion depending upon the facts of each case."
63. Upon perusal of the entire plaint and considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds that the core issue involved in this case is whether plaintiff no.1 was the exclusive owner of the property of Jogeshwar Ram by virtue of power of attorney or whether Defendant No.3 (brother of Jogeshwar Ram- who died issueless) had also inherited a share of the property of Jogeshwar Ram.
552025:JHHC:33501
64. It appears that the plaintiffs were asserting on the strength of the registered power of attorney dated 08.11.2000 executed by Jogeshwar Ram in favour of the plaintiff no.1 that the defendant no. 3 had no right with respect to the share of the property of Jogeshwar Ram by inheritance. Admittedly, Jogeshwar Ram died issueless; the father of the plaintiffs, the defendant no.3 and one Balmiki Singh were full brothers of Jogeshwar Ram. The defendant no.3 claimed and sold only 1/3rd share of Jogeshwar Ram (85 decimals) being the brother of deceased Jogeshwar Ram as one of his legal heirs and successors.
65. Admittedly, the plaintiffs were not party to the sale-deed dated 03.03.2011 or the preceding sale deed dated 10.11.2010 executed by the defendant no.3 through his power of attorney, defendant no.4. When the plaint is read as a whole, this Court finds that the plaintiffs asserted exclusive title by virtue of registered power of attorney dated 08.11.2000 executed by Jogeshwar Ram in favour of the plaintiff no.1 and the parties also joined issue on the point as to whether the plaintiffs acquired any exclusive right, title and interest with respect to entire property by virtue of registered power of attorney dated 08.11.2000 and further the plaintiffs being in possession did not seek recovery of possession. 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 held that the suit was barred by Specific Relief Act as the main issues were decided against the plaintiffs. This court is of the considered view that bar under Specific Relief Act has to be decided as an issue independent of adjudication of the other issues on merits and is dependent upon the facts of the case as pleaded by the respective parties. Considering the principles of law as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgement, this court is of the considered view that the suit was not barred under the provisions of Specific Relief Act.
66. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the point of determination no. (iii) is decided in favour of the appellants (plaintiffs) and against the respondents (defendants).
562025:JHHC:33501 Point of determination no. (iv) ,(v), (vi) and (vii)
67. So far as point of determination nos. (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) are concerned, they are all co-related. While answering these points it has to be considered firstly, whether the plaintiff no.1 acquired exclusive right and title by virtue of registered power of attorney dated 08.11.2000 executed by Jogeshwar Ram and secondly, whether defendant no.3 acquired any right, title and interest over the property of Jogeshwar Ram by way of inheritance and thirdly, whether the sale by defendant no.3 to the extent of his share as claimed by him is valid?
68. So far as the claim of exclusive title by the plaintiff no.1 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 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. 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. In such circumstances, the share of Jogeshwar Ram certainly devolved upon his brothers including the father of the plaintiffs and the defendant no.3 through inheritance.
69. It is relevant to note that the defendant no.3 had claimed and sold 1/3rd share of the ½ share of Jogeshwar Ram through the power of attorney executed in favour of the defendant no.4 by stating that Jogeshwar Ram had three brothers and Jogeshwar Ram died issueless and it was claimed by the defendant no. 3 that the share of Algu Ram devolved upon his nephew. During the course of arguments and even from the materials on record, it is an undisputed fact that Jogeshwar Ram were 4 brothers and he died issueless leaving behind three brothers including the father of the plaintiffs and defendant no.3.
572025:JHHC:33501 Thus, it is held that the plaintiff no.1 did not acquire exclusive right, title and interest over the suit land by virtue of Registered Power of Attorney dated 08.11.2000 executed by Jogeshwar Ram in favour of the Plaintiff no.1 -Krishna Singh AND Defendant No.3 has inherited a share of the property of Jogeshwar Ram being his full brother as Jogeshwar Ram died issueless. Consequently, the points of determination nos. (iv) and
(v) are decided against the plaintiffs(appellants) and in favour of the respondents(defendants).
70. Now it has to be examined as to whether the sale deed executed on behalf of the defendant no.3 is valid. The case is that the defendant no.3 sold 85 decimals of land to defendant no. 2 and defendant no.2 sold the same to the defendant no.1. Defendant No.3 is the full brother of Jogeshwar Ram [died issueless] and accordingly, property of Jogeshwar Ram would devolve upon his surviving three brothers including the father of the plaintiffs and defendant no.3, all being class II heirs.
71. Jogeshwar Ram had ½ share of the entire property of 5.10 acres owned jointly by Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram. Therefore, Baijnath Singh [defendant no.3 and full brother of Jogeshwar Ram], had 1/3rd share in the property of Jogeshwar Ram which comes to 85 decimals and he has sold to defendant no.2 only to that extent through his attorney defendant no.4 and this was followed by sale by defendant no.2 to defendant no.1. This court finds that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated these aspects of the matter while dismissing the suit on merits.
72. The perusal of the plaint reveals that the very locus of the defendant no. 3 to deal with the suit property was under challenge as the plaintiff no.1 claimed the entire share of Jogeshwar Ram by virtue of power of attorney dated 08.11.2000 and defendant no. 3 claimed that he has a share in the property of Jogeshwar Ram and the parties joined issue and led evidence on the point. The learned trial court after detailed scrutiny of the material on record, both oral and documentary, has rightly held that the Defendant no. 3 had 1/3rd share in the ½ share of Jogeshwar Ram in the entire property of 5.10 acres originally belonging to Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram which the defendant no.3 sold to 58 2025:JHHC:33501 defendant no. 2 to the extent of his share and defendant no.2 in turn sold to defendant no. 1.
73. Accordingly, it is held that the Defendant No.3 had the right to execute the Sale Deed No. 5888 dated 10.11.2010 for 85 decimals of land originally belonging to the share of Jogeshwar Ram in favour of Defendant No.2. It is further held that the registered Sale Deed No.1422 dated 03.03.2011 executed by the Defendant No. 2 in favour of the Defendant No.1 with respect to aforesaid 85 decimals of land is valid.
74. Consequently, the point of determination nos. (vi) and (vii) are also answered against the appellants (plaintiffs) and in favour of the respondents (defendants).
75. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, this appeal is dismissed.
76. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.
77. There shall be no order as to costs.
78. The office is to prepare decree accordingly.
79. Let a copy of this Judgment be communicated to the concerned court through "Fax/E-mail".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Judgment: 10.11.2025 Pankaj Date of Uploading: 11.11.2025 59