RANCHI, India, June 18 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on May 15:

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.09.2019 (decree signed on 06.11.2019) passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in Civil Appeal (Title Appeal) No. 53 of 2010, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment dated 27.03.2010 (decree signed on 08.04.2010) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division (Munsif), Khunti in Title Suit No. 08/2009 has been confirmed. The suit was decreed partly in favor of the plaintiffs.

2. The suit was filed seeking declaration of right, title and interest over the schedule property and confirmation of possession and permanent injunction upon the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs. A further relief was sought seeking a declaration that the sale deed executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 dated 03.08.2005 be declared null and void.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the findings recorded by the learned trial court in paragraph 25 and has submitted that the learned trial court has recorded a specific finding in favor of the defendants that the challenge to the sale deed dated 03.08.2005 was barred by limitation. The point of limitation was partly decided against the plaintiffs and partly in favor of the plaintiffs as other reliefs were also involved in the case.

4. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [Rajpal Singh vs. Saroj (deceased) through Legal Representatives] reported in (2022) 15 SCC 260 and has submitted that in a suit seeking cancellation of sale deed and recovery of possession, it is governed by Article 59 of the Limitation Act and not by Article 65. He has submitted that the learned 1st appellate court has not recorded any finding on the point of limitation.

5. The fact remains that the learned trial court had decided the issue of limitation, so far as challenge to the registered sale deed of the defendants is concerned, and the said finding is in favor of the defendants. At this the learned counsel for the appellant submits that in spite of the suit being barred by limitation, the 1st appellate court has confirmed the judgment of the learned trial court; the appellate court ought to have dismissed the suit itself. A substantial question of law arises for consideration by this court.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=U%2BbhtlrLe2adAHN8Tz%2F1d8H8qux3NgX4Z5Pvg%2F96%2F871%2BU6DX%2FB6wSAhfmm4yg1L&caseno=SA/184/2020&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010221142020&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.