Gautam Nag Sarkar Vs Manish Agarwal

¶1

2025:JHHC:14912

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 426 of 2025

¶3

Gautam Nag Sarkar, aged about 52 years, son of late Ganesh Nag Sarkar, resident of shop holding no.6, Golmuri Market, P.O. & P.S. Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur, Dist.- East Singhbhum … Petitioner

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

Manish Agarwal, son of late Nagarmal Agrawal, resident of shop holding no.E, Golmuri Market, P.O. & P.S. Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur, Dist.- East Singhbhum- 831003

¶6

Mukesh Kumar, son of late Nagarmal Agrawal, resident of shop holding no.E, Golmuri Market, P.O. & P.S. Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur, Dist.- East Singhbhum- 831003

¶7

Smt. Kamlesh Agarwal, wife of late Nagarmal Agrawal, resident of shop holding no.E, Golmuri Market, P.O. & P.S. Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur, Dist.- East Singhbhum- 831003

¶8

Smt. Sushma Agarwal, wife of Sri Rakesh Agarwal, daughter of late Nagarmal Agarwal, resident of Manik Para, P.O. & P.S. Manik Para, Dist.West Midnapore, West Bengal- 721513

¶9

Smt. Uma Devi, daughter of late Umesh Ray, resident of Quarter No.A/17, Bijay Nagar, Golmuri, P.O. & P.S. Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur, Dist. East Singhbhum, Pin- 831003

¶10

Smt. Rekha Nag Sarkar, daughter of late Pashupati Nag Sarkar, resident of Ghatmura, P.O. Chandrakona, P.S. Gharbheta, Dist. Midnapore, Pin831003

¶11

M/s Tata Steel Ltd., a limited company, incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its local office amongst others at Bistupur, P.O. & P.S. Bishtupur, Town Jamshedpur, Dist. East Singhbhum- 831001 … Opposite Parties

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶13

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate

¶14

Ms. Ishaani Singh, Advocate For O.P. No.7 : Mr. Amitabh Prasad, A.C. to Mr. G.M. Mishra, Advocate

¶15

06/10.06.2025 Heard Mr. Vishal Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Amitabh Prasad, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.7.

¶16

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

¶17

India praying therein to set-aside the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-V, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No.125/2021, whereby, the petition dated 28.02.2022 filed by the petitioner herein, who is defendant no.1 in the said suit under Section 4 of

¶18

-1-

¶19

C.M.P. No. 426 of 2025

¶20

2025:JHHC:14912

¶21

the Partition Act read with Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act was rejected.

¶22

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that opposite party nos. 1 to 4 are sons, daughter and widow of late Nagarmal Agrawal, son of Sri Gujarmal Agrawal. He further submits that undivided 1/3^rd share in shop cum residential holding no. 6. (Shop Holding), standing on area measuring 500 sq. ft., out of total allotment of 1,500 Sq.ft (20'ft x 75'ft) with kutcha and pucca structures, situated in Golmuri Market (Hotel Line), Golmuri, P.O and P.S. Golmuri, town Jamshedpur, Dist. East Singhbhum, within District sub Registry office, Jamshedpur and all that undivided 1/3^rd share in shop holding no. 6, standing on area measuring 20'ft x 25'ft i.e. 500 sq.ft (Kutcha structures on 200 sq.ft), standing on Shop Holding No. 6, out of the total land of 20'ft x 75'ft situated at Golmuri Market (Hotel Line), Ρ.Ο and P.S. Golmuri, town Jamshedpur, Dist. East Singhbhum, both the above properties cover all structures standing on undevided land of 40'ft x 75'ft, i.e., 2/3^rd (1,000 sq.ft out of total allotment area of 1500 sq.ft) in total, fully described in the schedule 'A' disclosed in the said suit. He then submits that one Pashupati Nag Sarkar was the common ancestor of the defendant nos. 1 to 7 in the said suit and Smt. N Bala was his wife, both of them died. Pashupati Nag Sarkar died leaving behind two sons and three daughters namely Jagdish Nag Sarkar, Ganesh Nag Sarkar as sons and Hashi Nag Sarkar, Maya Rani Sarkar and Rekha Nag Sarkar (defendant no. 7) as daughter in the Original Suit. Jagdish Nag Sarkar died unmarried, Ganesh Nag Sarkar died on 11.03.2010, leaving behind his widow Meera Nag Sarkar as defendant no. 5, and three sons and one daughter namely Gautam Nag Sarkar, Dalma Nag Sarkar @ Abhijeet Nag

¶23

-2-

¶24

C.M.P. No. 426 of 2025

¶25

2025:JHHC:14912

¶26

Sarkar, Rana Nag Sarkar and daughter Jhuma Bose who are defendant nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively in the Original Suit. Hashi Nag Sarkar died on 27.02.2004 leaving behind her only daughter Uma Devi who is defendant no. 6 in the original suit. The husband of Hashi Nag Sarkar predeceased her long back. Maya Rani Sarkar died unmarried on 03.06.2002 and Rekha Nag Sarkar is still alive who is defendant no. 7 in the original suit. He also submits that Pashupati Nag Sarkar during his life time enjoyed the said house property on the said holding with his wife N. Bala Nag Sarkar along with Jagdish Nag Sarkar, Ganesh Nag Sarkar as sons and Maya Rani Sarkar and Hashi Nag Sarkar and Rekha Nag Sarkar as daughters peacefully without any encumbrances and to the knowledge of all persons concerned. He was also making payment of regular ground rent and other charges to the superior landlord M/s. Tata Steel Ltd, Jamshedpur. After the death of Pashupati Nag Sarkar and his three other heirs namely Jagdish Nag Sarkar, Ganesh Nag Sarkar, Maya Rani Sarkar, the said house property on Shop Hol No. 6, Golmuri Market used to be possessed peacefully by Hashi Nag Sarkar and heirs of Ganesh Nag Sarkar and Rekha Nag Sarkar as heirs and successor of the deceased Pashupati Nag Sarkar. He further submits that further descriptions are described in the present C.M.P. stating therein how the property was shared. He then submits that defendant no.6 in the said original suit Uma Devi executed a sale deed on 29.03.2010 in favour of the said Nagarmal Agarwal and got the said sale deed registered on 22.04.2010 bearing Sale Deed No.3134, serial no. 3788 at the District Sub Registration Office, Jamshedpur on receiving the entire consideration amount to the tune of Rs.3 Lakhs from the said Nagarmal Agarwal. According to him, the Government

¶27

-3-

¶28

C.M.P. No. 426 of 2025

¶29

2025:JHHC:14912

¶30

value was more than that and in spite of that the sale deed was executed on lesser amount. He also submits that there has not been any partition of the aforesaid premises on Holding No.6, Golmuri Market, Jamshedpur amongst the heirs of the deceased Pashupati Nag Sarkar. Nagarmal Agarwal filed suit for partition to demarcate 1/3^rd share of Uma Devi (defendant no.6 in the original suit) which was purchased by the said Nagarmal Agarwal by registered sale deed on 29.03.2010 registered on 22.04.2010 bearing registered Sale Deed No.3134, serial no.3788. He further submits that notice was issued to the petitioner herein in the said original suit, who is defendant no.1 and he appeared and filed his written statement in the said original suit and along with written statement he filed a petition under Section 4 of the Partition Act read with Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act and by the impugned order, the learned Court has been pleased to dispose of the said petition for the reasons assigned therein. He submits that the learned Court has held that the issue with regard to Section 4 of the Partition Act read with Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act has already been framed in the said suit and in view of that, the same will be decided in the final judgment. He submits that once the petition has been filed, the learned Court is required to decide the same first and thereafter to proceed in the suit. To buttress this argument, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Raisurana v. Jamshedpur Property Developers Private Limited & others in C.M.P. No.222 of 2021 , vide judgment dated 31.10.2023. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set-aside.

¶31

4. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.7, who is M/s Tata

¶32

-4-

¶33

C.M.P. No. 426 of 2025

¶34

2025:JHHC:14912

¶35

Steel Limited, submits that the learned Court has rightly passed the order. He submits that the issue has already been framed and that can be decided by the learned Court after providing opportunity to both the sides.

¶36

5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that admittedly the property in question has not been partitioned and one of the legal heirs/successors has sold the property to petitioner no.1 and subsequently the partition suit was filed by the purchaser. In this background, the learned Court has already framed issues with regard to Section 4 of the Partition Act read with Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act and has held that the issue has already been framed and that will be decided after providing opportunity to both the sides in the suit along with other issues. In view of that, if such a situation is there particularly when a partition has not taken place between the parties, the learned Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the issue framed will be decided after providing opportunity to the parties and for that evidence is required to be led to decide the same issue.

¶37

6. It is not clear as to whether the said petition filed by the petitioner was pressed earlier or not and on later stage, it was pressed and with regard to the said petition, the learned Court has already taken care of by the impugned order and it is not decided against the petitioner and the learned Court has observed that for deciding the same, the evidence is required to be led and in view of that, the learned Court has rightly passed the order.

¶38

7. Since the suit property has many co-owners including the plaintiffopposite party, the defendant-petitioner could not have acquired right, title

¶39

-5-

¶40

C.M.P. No. 426 of 2025

¶41

2025:JHHC:14912

¶42

and interest in the whole of the suit property solely on the basis of the sale deed dated 29.03.2010 executed by forefather of the petitioner. The sale deed, if at all, in accordance with Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act may be a valid document to the extent of the share of opposite party in the property and the petitioner is free to take remedies to claim appropriate relief either by suit of partition or by suit of compensation and damages against opposite party. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sk. Golam Lalchand v. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes and others , reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2456 .

¶43

8. So far as the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Arun Raisurana v. Jamshedpur Property Developers Private Limited (supra) is concerned, the ratio decided in Sk. Golam

¶44

Lalchand v. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes

¶45

and others (supra) is not considered in that case and in view of that, the facts of that case is distinguishable.

¶46

9. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, no case of interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶47

10. The learned Court will decide the issue as already observed in the impugned order, in accordance with law.

¶48

11. The dismissal of this C.M.P. will not prejudice the case of either of the parties.

¶49

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)