Patna High Court
Kumari Sunita RaniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The petition for mandamus was dismissed; the petitioner must approach the competent authority under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for any cancellation of the sale deed.
Summary
Petitioner Sunita Rani, wife of Kumud Kishore, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to cancel a sale deed executed by her husband in 2019 in favour of Dinesh Kumar, alleging that the land originally belonged to her father‑in‑law and that the sale was fraudulent. The respondent GP objected that the husband, who was the vendor, was not made a party to the suit and that no criminal case had been filed, suggesting that the petitioner could invoke Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for cancellation. The court noted that the transaction occurred seven years earlier and that the petitioner’s husband was not a respondent, rendering the petition untenable. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act if she wishes to pursue cancellation.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to cancel a registered sale deed under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
- Whether the petitioner has locus standi and timely relief given the delay of seven years and the non‑inclusion of the husband as a respondent.
Legislation cited
- Registration Act, 1908 — s. 16
- Specific Relief Act, 1963 — s. 31
Subjects
- mandamus
- Specific Relief Act
- cancellation of deed
- writ petition
- delay
- standing
- land sale
- fraud
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3573 of 2026
======================================================
Kumari Sunita Rani D/o Pramanand Ray, Wife of Kumud Kishore, Resident
of Village-Sabalpur, Hasti Tola, P.S.-Rupaspur Danapur, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, District-Patna.
4. The Registrar, Registary Office, Patna.
5. Dinesh Kumar, S/o Rajdev Ray, Resident of Village-Mahuabagh, P.O.-
Dhanaut, P.S.-Rupaspur, District-Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Md. Shadab Alam Wazdi, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Manish Kumar, GP (04)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 28-04-2026 Heard tMr.Md. Shadab Alam Wazdi, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr.Manish Kumar, learned GP-04.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
(i) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the
nature of MANDAMUS or any other writ(s),
order(s), direction(s), command(s) for
directing the respondents to cancel the sale
deed vide sale deed no.6068 in book no 1.
volume no.140 on pages from 466 to 475
and has been preserved in total 10 pages in
Patna High Court CWJC No.3573 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
2/4
C.D. No.21 year 2019 dated 12.03.2019.
3. The petitioner who is the wife of Kumud Kishore
is aggrieved by his action in selling a piece of land to the
respondent no.5 on 12.03.2019.
4. The contention is that the father-in-law of the
petitioner purchased the said land in the year 2002 and as such
beside Kumud Kishore who is the only son of her father-in-law,
the daughters and sons who have came to this world out of the
said wedlock also entitled to the share but the friend of the
husband of the petitioner who is respondent no.5 fraudulently
got the sale-deed executed.
5. Learned G.P.-04 made preliminary objection and
submits that neither the husband who is the vendor has been
made respondent in this case nor there is anything on record to
show that for the said fraudulent act, the petitioner lodged any
criminal case and rightly so as in that case, the husband may
have also been dragged in the said case. He has taken this Court
to paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit, according to which, the
petitioner can very well invoke Section 31 of the Specific Act,
1963 (henceforth for short ‘the Act’) for cancellation of the
sale-deed.
6. Section 31 of ‘the Act’ read as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.3573 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
3/4
31. When cancellation may be ordered.-(1)
Any person against whom a written
instrument is void or voidable, and who has
reasonable apprehension that such
instrument, if left outstanding may cause him
serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged
void or voidable; and the Court may, in its
discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be
delivered up and cancelled.
(2) If the instrument has been registered
under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16
of 1908), the Court shall also send a copy
of its decree to the officer in whose office
the instrument has been so registered; and
such officer shall note on the copy of the
instrument contained in his books the fact
of its cancellation.
5. This Court has taken note of the facts of the case
and the submissions of the parties as also section 31 of ‘the
Act’, the admitted fact is that transaction took place in the year
2019, the writ petition has been filed after seven years. Worse,
the husband, Kumud Kishore has not been made respondent, in
Patna High Court CWJC No.3573 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
4/4
that background, no relief can be extended to her.
6. The writ petition is disposed of allowing the
petitioner to approach the competent authority under section 31
of ‘the Act’, if she so wants.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U
Checking your session…