Braj Mohan Singh Vs Suman Singh

2025:JHHC:33021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1120 of 2024

Mitra Lobanya Kar, W/o Tapan Karand, D/o Late Dilip Kumar Roy, R/o 30 A Sankaritalla Street, P.O Entali, P.S- Muchipara, District Kolkata 14 (West Bengal) ..... .... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Suman Singh, S/o Brijmohan Singh, R/o Roy Bunglow of Deoghar Town, Near Railway Station, P.O B. Deoghar P.S Subdivision and District Deoghar.

¶6

Robin Roy, S/o- Late Dilip Kumar Roy, R/o- 30A, Sankaritalla Street, P.O. Entali, P.S. Muchipara, District Kolkata, West Bengal.

¶7

Barnali Roy, W/o- Late Arun Kumar Roy, R/o- 30A, Sankaritalla Street, P.O. Entali, P.S. Muchipara, District Kolkata, West Bengal.

¶8

Deepayan Roy (Minor), S/o- Late Arun Kumar Roy, represented through his mother Barnali Roy, R/o- R/o-30A, Sankaritalla Street, P.O. Entali, P.S. Muchipara, District Kolkata, West Bengal.

¶9

MUNNAM SANJAY S/o Chandra Narayan Bajpai, Resident of: Parmeshwar Dayal Road, Barmasiya, P.S Deoghar, Subdivision and District Deoghar, State: Jharkhand Aadhaar No.: 2662 9755 3478

¶10

ROSHAN KUMAR SINGH S/o Krishnanand Singh, Resident of: Dhawabad, Post Kukraha, P.S Chitra, Subdivision-Madhupur, District: Deoghar, State: Jharkhand

¶11

BRAJ MOHAN SINGH S/o Gopal Singh By profession: Business Resident of: House No 14, Near Birla Maidan, Indrapuri Road No. 09, Ratu Road, PO- Ratu Road, PS- Sukhdeonagar, Ranchi, State: Jharkhand Aadhaar No.: 3557 6553 2141 Mobile No.: 94321170051 Category: General

¶12

GOPAL SINGH S/o Bhaktimal Prasad Singh, By profession: Business Resident of: Adharsh Colony, Ranga More, PO and PS- Deoghar, District: Deoghar, State: Jharkhand Aadhaar No.: 7669 1722 4000 Mobile No.: 9709138101 Category: General

¶13

Amarnath Tekriwal S/o Sitaram Tekriwal, By profession: Business Resident of: 169, Mufasil Thana, Sarkanda, PO- Godda, District, Godda, State: Jharkhand Aadhaar No.: 4919 4051 2169 Category: General

¶14

10.Vivek Mishra S/o Nityanand Mishra, By profession: Business, Resident of Roy Banglow, Asharam Keshan Road, PO & PS-Doghar, District, Deoghar, State: Jharkhand Aadhaar No.: 5802 5967 1637 Mobile No.: 7991123942 Category: General

¶15

11.Birju Nath Hansda S/o Lathar Hansda, By profession: Business, Resident of: Village Mohanpur, P.S. Bindapather, Po-Jamtara, District: Jamtara, State: Jharkhand Aadhaar No.: 7887 7304 9514 Category: ST

¶16

12.Saran Alcohol Private Limited, Through its Director Jogendra Tiwari S/o Rameshwar Tiwari, Resident of: Station Road, Mihizam, Mihizam Railway Station, Mihizam, PO and PS- Mohijam, District, Jamtara, State: Jharkhand Aadhaar No.: 6250 6705 1328

¶17

13.Swastik TradersThrough its Director Sudip Kumar Dey, Resident of: Bijpur North, 129, Naihati, near Nana Hospital, Halishar Post Malancho, Beliyaghat, 24 Pargana, West Bengal

¶18

14.Dhanwad Wines Through its Director Shanker Singh S/o Naresh Singh By profession: Business, Resident of: 67/03, Krishna Nagar, Mihijam, PO and PS- Mohijam, District, Jamtara, State: Jharkhand Aadhaar No.: 3094 7134 2695 Category: General

¶19

15.Anirudha Kumar Singh S/o Late Arun Kumar Singh, By Profession :-

¶20

1

¶21

2025:JHHC:33021

¶22

Business, Resident of: Rathore Villa, A/42 Housing Colony, Po +PSDhanbad, Jharkhand.

¶23

… …. Opposite Parties

¶24

With C.M.P. No. 520 of 2025

¶25

Braj Mohan Singh, S/o Late Gopal Narayan Singh, R/o H.N. 94, Near Birla Maidan, Indrapuri Road No. 9, Ratu Road, P.O Hehal, P.S.-Sukhdeo Nagar, District-Ranchi

¶26

Vivek Mishra, S/o Nityanand Mishra, R/o Roy Banglow, Asha Ram Keshan Road, Castairs Town, Deoghar, P.O & P.S Deoghar District-Deoghar

¶27

Munnam Sanjay, S/o Chandra Narayan Bajpai, R/o House No. 21, Ward No. 7, Parmeshwar Dayal Road, Barmasiya, P.O & P.S-Deoghar, District Deoghar

¶28

Roshan Kumar Singh, S/o Krishnanand Singh R/o Village-Dhawabad, P.OKukaraha, P.S. Chitra, District-Deoghar

¶29

Gopal Singh @ Gopal Singh, S/o Bhaktimal Prasad Singh, R/o Adharsh Colony, Ranga More, Deoghar, P.O & P.S-Deoghar, District Deoghar

¶30

Amarnath Tekriwal, S/o Sitaram Tekriwal, R/o 169, Sarkanda, P.O-Godda, P.S Mufasil Thana, District-Godda

¶31

Birjunath Hansda, S/o Lathar Hansda, R/o Village Mohanpur, P.O Jamtara, P.S. Bindapather, Dist.-Jamtara

¶32

Saran Alcohol Private Limited, through its Director Jogendra Tiwari, S/o Rameshwar Tiwari, R/o Station Road, Mihizam, P.O & P.S Mihizam District, Jamtara

¶33

Swastik Traders through its Director Sudip Kumar Dey, S/o Sunil Kumar Dey, R/o Bizpur North, 129, Naihati, Near Nana Hospital, Halisahar, P.O. Malancho, P.S. Bizpur, District-North 24 Parganas (West Bengal)

¶34

10.Dhanwad Wines through its Director Shankar Singh S/o Naresh Singh, R/o 67/03, Krishna Nagar, Mihijam P.O. & P.S. Mihijam, District-Jamtara

¶35

11.Anirudha Kumar Singh, S/o late Arun Kumar Singh, R/o Rathore Villa, A/42 Housing Colony Dhanbad, P.O & P.S. Chirkunda District-Dhanbad

¶36

..... .... Petitioners

¶37

Versus

¶38

Suman Singh, S/o Brijmohan Singh, R/o Roy Bunglow, Castairs Town, Deoghar, P.O & P.S Deoghar District Deoghar

¶39

Mitra Lobanya Kar, W/o Tapan Karand, D/o Late Dilip Kumar Roy, R/o 30 A Sankaritalla Street, P.O Entali, P.S- Muchipara, District Kolkata (West Bengal)

¶40

Robin Roy, S/o Late Dilip Kumar Roy, R/o 30A, Sankaritalla Street, P.O Entali, P.S- Muchipara, District Kolkata (West Bengal)

¶41

Barnali Roy, W/o late Arun Kumar Roy, R/o 30A, Sankaritalla Street, P.O Entali, P.S- Muchipara, District Kolkata (West Bengal)

¶42

Deepayan Roy (Minor), S/o Late Arun Kumar Roy, represented through his mother Barnali Roy, R/o 30A, Sankaritalla Street, P.O Entali, P.SMuchipara, District Kolkata (West Bengal) ` … …. Opposite Parties

¶43

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶44

2

¶45

2025:JHHC:33021

¶46

For the Petitioner	: Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate (In CMP 1120/2024) Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate Md. Faiyaj Alam, Advocate (In CMP 520/2025)
For the Opposite Parties ------	: Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate Md. Faiyaj Alam, Advocate Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate (In CMP 1120/2024) Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate (In CMP 520/2025)

¶47

13 / Dated : 03.11.2025.

¶48

Both the civil misc. petitions have been preferred against the order dated 08.08.2024 passed in Title Execution Case No. 07/2013, whereby and whereunder, the execution was permitted to be withdrawn at the instance of three legal substituted heirs of the co-decree-holders.

¶49

C.M.P. No. 1120 of 2024 has been preferred by one of the legal heirs of the decree-holders Dilip Kumar Roy (since dead) against the permission of withdrawal of the execution case at the instance of other legal heirs of the decree-holders.

¶50

C.M.P. No. 520 of 2025 has been preferred by the petitioners / pendente lite purchasers of the suit property and are aggrieved by the withdrawal of the execution case without passing any order on the intervention application filed by the Petitioner.

¶51

One Dilip Kumar Roy @ Ray filed Title Eviction Suit No.17/1999 impleading Suman Singh for eviction from the scheduled property which is a residential house situated in Holding No. 46, Ward No.18, Deoghar Municipality. The suit was decreed vide judgment dated 20.06.2002. No appeal was preferred against the judgment and it consequently attained finality. Execution Case No. 07/2013 was filed by the decree-holder. Before filing the execution case, Dilip Kumar Roy died in the year, 2012 and execution case was filed by his wife, sons and daughter namely, Margaret Anna Roy, Mitra Lobanya Kar, Robin Roy and Arun Kumar Roy. During pendency of the execution case, Margret Anna Ray died on 11.08.2020 and Arun Kumar Roy died on 06.08.2020. On their death, vide order dated 19.05.2023, substitution was allowed for Barnali Roy and Deep Narayan Roy in place of Arun Kumar Roy, whereas the name of Margaret Anna Roy

¶52

3

¶53

2025:JHHC:33021

¶54

was deleted. In the meantime, Braj Mohan Singh (petitioner in C.M.P. No. 520 of 2025) filed an intervention application which was heard on 04.07.2023 and further was heard on 22.11.2023. During pendency of the intervention application, at the instance of Margaret Ann Roy, Robin Roy and Arun Kumar Roy, withdrawal application was allowed by the impugned order dated 08.08.2024. The withdrawal application was filed on 04.03.2020, signed by Margaret Ann Roy, Robin Kumar Roy and Arun Kumar Roy.

¶55

The main point for determination in the instant CMP is that can execution case be withdrawn by some of the legal heirs of the decree-holder(s), without the consent of the other legal heirs.

¶56

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that it was impermissible to have allowed the withdrawal application without the consent of the petitioner- Mitra Lobanya Kar who admittedly is the daughter of the decreeholder, Late Dilip Kumar Roy.

¶57

Further after filing of the withdrawal application on 04.03.2020, both Margaret Anna Roy and Arun Kumar Roy died before any order could be passed on the said withdrawal petition. After their death, the legal heirs were substituted and brought on record.

¶58

However, without hearing the intervenor application filed by the petitioners of CMP No.520 of 2025, the withdrawal was allowed of the original applicant who had died and were substituted at the time of passing of the impugned order.

¶59

It is argued by learned counsel for the Opp. Party(s) that out of the four legal heirs and descendants of the decree-holders, three of them entered into an agreement of sale dated 11.09.2019 between Margaret Ann. Ray, Robin Kumar Ray with Pushpesh Kumar Kashyap, Binod Kumar, Rahul Kumar, Anjani Kumar Singh, Rakesh Kumar, and Mina Devi and for selling the share of the decreed property in their favour and in pursuant to it, a sum of Rs.2.77 Crores have already been paid to these three legal heirs of the decree-holder on the basis of which, the withdrawal petition was filed.

¶60

10.Opp. Party (Suman Singh) happens to be the husband of the proposed purchaser, Mina Devi.

¶61

11.It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that Original Title Suit No.43 of 2020 has also been filed by the proposed purchasers including

¶62

4

¶63

2025:JHHC:33021

¶64

Mina Devi, [W/o Suman Singh] impleading the petitioners of CMP No.520 of 2025 as the legal heirs of decree-holder who had entered into an agreement to sell for cancellation of sale-deed. In the said suit, written statement has been filed by Margaret Ann. Ray, Robin Kumar Roy and Arun Kumar Roy wherein it has been stated that the sale-deed was executed by playing fraud and representing that it was only a settlement deed resolving the dispute between the parties.

¶65

12.Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides and on perusal of materials on record, it is evident that the present petitioner, Mitra Lobanya Kar, and opposite parties Margaret Ann. Ray, Robin Kumar Roy and Arun Kumar Roy are all legal heirs and descendants of the decreeholder, Dilip Kumar Ray who died before institution of Execution Case No.07 of 2013. Consequently, the execution case was filed by all the four legal heirs and descendants of the decree-holder.

¶66

13.During the pendency of the execution case, part of the suit property was sold out by the heirs and descendants of the decree-holders, to the petitioners in CMP No.520 of 2025 vide two registered sale-deeds executed on 16.01.2020 and 20.01.2020. Once a sale-deed is executed, the title in the property is transferred to the purchasers on the date of execution of the sale-deed in terms of Section 47 of the Registration of Property Act.

¶67

14.Thus, the purchasers from the legal heirs of the decree holders, who are petitioners in CMP No.520 of 2025, had acquired proportionate share in the decretal property, became the necessary party in the execution proceeding and, therefore, learned Executing Court committed egregious error to permit withdrawal of the execution case without hearing and disposing of their intervenor application.

¶68

15.Further, three of the legal heirs, as referred to above, entered into an agreement to sale, for selling their share in the decretal property to the proposed purchasers, and withdrew the case. Permitting withdrawal without the consent of the Petitioner- Mitra Lobanya Kar ex facie was impermissible.

¶69

16.An eviction suit can be prosecuted by anyone of the co-owner(s). Even if, it is assumed that the other decree-holders had sold their share or entered into an agreement of sale with respect to their respective share, it was incumbent on the part of the executing court to demarcate and exclude the share of

¶70

5

¶71

2025:JHHC:33021

¶72

petitioner, Mitra Lobanya Kar who had not consented to the withdrawal of the case.

¶73

17.Under the circumstances, the impugned order being not sustainable is accordingly set aside.

¶74

18.The matter is remanded to the learned Executing Court to pass the order afresh after hearing both the parties. Both sides to appear before the learned Executing Court on 24.11.2025. It is also settled that agreement of sale does not transfer title. Learned Executing Court to dispose of the Execution Case in the light of guidelines laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Ors., [(2021) 6 SCC 418] .

¶75

19.In the event of non-appearance of the party(s), learned Executing Court without granting further adjournment will proceed and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

¶76

Both the C.M.Ps. stand disposed of. Pending I.As, if any, also stands disposed of .

¶77

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶78

Pawan / sandeep –

¶79

Uploaded 06.11.2025

¶80

6

Braj Mohan Singh v. Suman Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Braj Mohan Singh v. Suman Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Asfaque Alias Asfaque Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt. Bhagabati Choudhary Vs Dabasish Choudhary

Sita Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Singh Vs Usha Rakheja

Sri Nandlal Sahu Vs Hiralal Sahu

The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary Water Resources Department Vs M/S R.M. Sinha and Company, Represented Thro Its Duly Nominated and Authorized Person Sri R. Sarkar