Patna High Court
Suresh ThakurversusBaudhu Rawat and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- KHATIM REZA
Holding
The second appeal is dismissed, upholding the lower courts' finding that the sale deeds are valid and Kamli Devi had the right to sell her share.
Summary
The plaintiff, Suresh Thakur, appealed a second time against judgments that upheld the validity of two sale deeds executed by Kamli Devi in favour of Baudhu Rawat and Bhuneshwar Thakur. The plaintiff claimed that Kamli Devi was not the daughter of Anandi Thakur and that Anandi had died issueless, rendering the sale deeds void and the land ancestral to the plaintiff. The trial court and the first appellate court found that Kamli Devi was indeed Anandi's daughter, that Anandi had not died issueless, and that the sale deeds were genuine and within her share. The appellate court also noted that the plaintiff failed to prove that the specific parcels (Khata Nos. 2053 and 2056) were not part of the family property. Justice Khatim Reza, hearing the second appeal, found no substantial question of law and declined to interfere, dismissing the appeal under Order XLI Rule 11 of the CPC.
Issues considered
- Whether Kamli Devi is the lawful daughter and heir of Anandi Thakur.
- Whether Anandi Thakur died issueless, affecting the inheritance rights.
- Whether the sale deeds dated 16.12.2005 and 12.05.2004 executed by Kamli Devi are valid and binding.
- Whether the plaintiff established that the land transferred exceeded Kamli Devi's legitimate share.
- Whether there exists a substantial question of law warranting interference with the lower courts' findings.
Subjects
- title suit
- declaration of title
- possession
- sale deed validity
- inheritance
- ancestral property
- second appeal
- civil procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SECOND APPEAL No.426 of 2017
======================================================
Suresh Thakur S/o Late Naurangi Thakur, Resident of Village- Kharainch,
P.O.- Kharainch, P.S.- Khaira, District- Jamui.
... ... Plaintiff-Appellant- Appellant
Versus
1. Baudhu Rawat S/o Late Jahuri Rawat, Resident of Village- Kharainch, P.O.-
Kharainch, P.S.- Khaira, District- Jamui.
2. Bhuneshwar Thakur, S/o Baiju Thakur, Resident of Village- Kharainch,
P.O.- Kharainch, P.S.- Khaira, District- Jamui.
3. Kamli Devi @ Manju Devi, W/o Makeshwar Thakur @ Lalan Thakur,
Resident of Village- Geruapur Sanda, P.O.- Geruapur Sanda, P.S.- Halsi,
District- Lakhisarai, D/o Banwari Thakur, Resident of Village- Bhalui, P.O.-
Bhalui, District- Lakhisarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Kartik Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
ORAL ORDER
13 22-01-2026 Heard Mr. Kartik Kumar Sinha, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant.
2. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the
judgment and decree of affirmance dated 27.05.2017 passed by
the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Jamui, in
Title Appeal No. 49 of 2011 whereby, the learned First
Appellate Court Affirmed the judgment and decree dated
15.10.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-II, Jamui, in Title
Patna High Court SA No.426 of 2017(13) dt.22-01-2026
2/5
Suit No. 25 of 2008.
3. The plaintiff is the appellant in the present Second
Appeal.
4. The plaintiff filed the Title Suit for declaration of
title and confirmation of possession over suit land and also for
declaring the sale deeds dated 16.12.2005 and 12.05.2004
executed by Kamli Devi @ Manju Devi (defendant no. 3) in
favour of Budhu Rawat (defendant no. 1) and Bhuneshwar
Thakur (defendant no. 2) are not binding upon him and are
liable to be cancelled. The plaintiff further prayed for permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his
possession.
5. The specific case of the plaintiff is that Kamli Devi
@ Manju Devi is not the daughter of Anandi Thakur. It is
further pleaded that Naurangi Thakur had two sons, namely
Anandi Thakur and Suresh Thakur (the plaintiff). Anandi
Thakur died issueless. The further case of the plaintiff is that
defendant no. 3 sold the suit land in favour of defendant nos. 1
and 2 without any legal right or authority. After the death of
Anandi Thakur, his widow left the matrimonial home and
remarried. The suit property is claimed to be ancestral property
of Naurangi Thakur and after the death of Anandi Thakur, the
Patna High Court SA No.426 of 2017(13) dt.22-01-2026
3/5
entire property is stated to have devolved upon the plaintiff.
6. On summons, defendant nos. 1 and 2, who are
purchasers from defendant no. 3 along with defendant no. 3,
filed their written statements contesting the suit. They asserted
that Kamli Devi is the daughter of Anandi Thakur. It was
pleaded that after the death of her mother, Kamli Devi left her
parental home at the age of 5-6 years and was brought up by her
maternal grandfather and grandmother. It was further contended
that she being the heir executed the sale deeds in favour of
defendant nos. 1 and 2 in accordance with her share.
7. The learned Trial Court, after analyzing the
pleadings, evidence adduced by the parties and materials on
record has held that Kamli Devi (defendant no.3) is the daughter
of Anandi Thakur and Anandi Thakur had not died issueless and
Kamli Devi had full right and title to sell the land of Anandi
Thakur and both sale deeds are valid and genuine documents.
8. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred Title
Appeal No. 49 of 2011, which was also dismissed by the learned
First Appellate Court. While deciding the appeal, the learned
Appellate Court framed points for determination and after
appreciation of the evidence on record held that the plaintiff
failed to establish that Anandi Thakur had died issueless and
Patna High Court SA No.426 of 2017(13) dt.22-01-2026
4/5
Kamli Devi was not the daughter of Anandi Thakur. The
Appellate Court further observed that no evidence was adduced
by the plaintifff to prove that who is the father of Kamli Devi
and as such the sale deeds dated 16.12.2005 and 12.05.2004
executed by her are valid and legal documents. Navrangi Thakur
had a total of 93.5 decimals of land, out of which approximately
46.5 decimals each would devolve upon Anandi Thakur and
Suresh Thakur. Kamli Devi transferred 55.5 decimals of land to
defendants no. 1 and 2, which is about 8 decimals more than her
legitimate share. However, the plaintiff failed to clearly state in
the plaint how Kamli Devi transferred land of Khata Nos. 2053
and 2056. There is no evidence on record on this point. Such an
issue can be challenged only by the person whose rights are
adversely affected. The plaintiff has no where stated that land
of Khata Nos. 2053 and 2056 are not the family property.
Therefore, Kamli Devi had full right to sell Anandi Thakur’s
share and both the sale deeds are valid documents in accordance
with Anandi Thakur’s share.
9. Having regard to the discussions made
hereinabove, I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent
findings of the learned Courts below and there is no question of
law much less substantial question of law involved in this case.
Patna High Court SA No.426 of 2017(13) dt.22-01-2026
5/5
10. Thus, the instant Second Appeal is dismissed at
the stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 C.P.C.
11. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of.
12. The parties shall bear their own costs.
(Khatim Reza, J)
shyambihari/-
U
Checking your session…