Satish Kumar Upadhyay Vs Kashida Devi

2025:JHHC:33523

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 869 of 2025

Smt. Tara Devi, Wife of Ramesh Dubey, R/o Village-Pakari, P.O.-Kishunpur, P.S.-Patan, District-Palamau; presently resident of Village-Sudna, P.O. & P.S.- Daltonganj, District-Palamau, Jharkhand

¶4

.... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Kashida Devi, Wife of Sukhdeo Mahto, R/o Village – Sudna, P.O.-Sudna, P.S.-Daltonganj, District-Palamau, Jharkhand;

¶7

Akhileshwar Mahto, son of Ram Charitra Mahto;

¶8

Nirmala Kuer, wife of Late Amresh Mahto;

¶9

Manoj Kumar, son of Late Amresh Mahto;

¶10

Sunita Kumari, daughter of Late Amresh Mahto;

¶11

Anuj Kumar, son of Late Amresh Mahto; Nos.2 to 6 residents of Village-Sudna, P.O.-Sudna, P.S.-Daltonganj, DistrictPalamau;

¶12

Bajranti Devi, wife of Sri Radhika Mahto;

¶13

Shatranti Devi, wife of Sri Radhika Mahto,

¶14

Nos.7 & 8 residents of Village-Pipra Kala, P.O.-Ranki Kala, P.S.-Satbarwa, District-Palamau;

¶15

Jagranti Devi, wife of Sri Suresh Mahto, resident of Village Ajlatua, P.O. & P.S.- Chainpur, District-Palamau

¶16

10.Kamla Devi, Wife of Late Law Kumar Upadhyay;

¶17

11.Rakesh Kumar Upadhyay, son of Late Law Kumar Upadhyay;

¶18

12.Kaushlesh Kumar Upadhyay, son of Late Law Kumar Upadhyay; Nos.10 to 12 residents of Village-Chetma, P.O. & P.S.-Patan, DistrictPalamau; presently resident of Village-Kund Muhalla, Hamidganj, New Area Ward No.13, P.O. & P.S.-Daltonganj, District-Palamau;

¶19

13.Renu Devi, wife of Krishna Nand Dubey, resident of Village Bhurkunda, Ramgarh Road, P.O. & P.S.-Bhurkunda, District-Hazaribagh;

¶20

14.Smt. Indu Devi, wife of Pramod Tiwari, resident of Village-Puradih, P.O.Puradih, P.S.-Nawhata, District-Rohtas (Bihar);

¶21

15.Smt. Sindhu Devi, wife of Arun Kumar Mishra, resident of Village-Lohara, P.O.-Garikhas, P.S.-Pandwa, District-Palamau; presently resident of Village-Sudna, P.O.-Sudna, P.S.-Daltonganj, DistrictPalamau;

¶22

16.Sumati Devi, wife of Late Baijnath Singh;

¶23

17.Arbind Kumar Singh, son of Late Baijnath Singh;

¶24

18.Arun Kumar Singh, son of Late Baijnath Singh;

¶25

19.Manoj Kumar Singh, son of Late Baijnath Singh;

¶26

Nos.16 to 19, resident of Mohalla Nandlal Institute Road, Hamidganj, P.O. & P.S.-Daltonganj, District-Palamau;

¶27

20.Manju Devi, wife of Shailesh Kumar Singh and daughter of Late Baijnath Singh, resident of Village-Beraj, P.O.-Kauria, P.S.-Mohania, DistrictBhabhua (Bihar);

¶28

21.Sanju Devi, wife of Purusottam Kumar Singh and daughter of Late Baijnath Singh, resident of Village Madhey, P.O. & P.S.-Nabinagar, DistrictAurangabad (Bihar);

¶29

Sheo Poojan Singh, son of Birja Singh, resident of Village-Tenta, P.O. &

¶30

1

¶31

2025:JHHC:33523

¶32

P.S.-Hussainabad, District-Palamau; presently resident of Village-Sudna, P.O. & P.S.-Daltonganj, District-Palamau.

¶33

… …. Opposite Parties

¶34

With

¶35

C.M.P. No. 829 of 2025

¶36

Ram Lakhan Dubey, S/o Late Ram Das Dubey

¶37

Asha Devi, Wife of Ram Lakhan Dubey

¶38

Both resident of village-Pakri, P.O.-Kishunpur, P.S.-Patan, District-Palamau, Jharkhand at present residing at Mohalla-Surbhinagar, P.O.-Sudna, P.S.-Daltonganj, District-Palamau, Jharkhand

¶39

.... Petitioners

¶40

Versus

¶41

Kashida Devi, Wife of Sukhdeo Mahto, R/o Village-Sudna, P.O.-Sudna, P.S.-Daltonganj, District-Palamau, Jharkhand

¶42

… …. Opposite Party

¶43

With

¶44

C.M.P. No. 849 of 2025

¶45

Satish Kumar Upadhyay, S/o Ram Naresh Upadhyay, R/o Gaytri Nagar Ekta Pathroad Sudna, Village-Sudna, P.O. & P.S.- Medininagar, Daltonganj, District-Palamau, Jharkhand ..... .... Petitioner

¶46

Versus

¶47

Kashida Devi, Wife of Sukhdeo Mahto, R/o Village – Sudna, P.O.-Sudna, P.S.-Daltonganj, District-Palamau, Jharkhand

¶48

… …. Opposite Party

¶49

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶50

C.M.P. No. 869 of 2025

¶51

For the Petitioner	: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.	Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate Kumar Rahul, Advocate Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Arpit Khandelwal, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties	: Mr. Mr.	Baban Prasad, Advocate Chandan Kumar Bhagat, Advocate
C.M.P. No. 829 of 2025
For the Petitioners	: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.	Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate Ranjit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate Anjumar Dewarshi, Advocate Jeet, Advocate
For the Opposite Party	: Mr.	Baban Prasad, Advocate
C.M.P. No. 849 of 2025
For the Petitioner	: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.	Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate Ranjit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate Anjumar Dewarshi, Advocate Jeet, Advocate
For the Opposite Party	: Mr. ------	Baban Prasad, Advocate

2

2025:JHHC:33523

JUDGMENT

C.A.V. ON 13.10.2025 PRONOUNCED ON 10.11.2025

¶56

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Opposite parties.

¶57

1. All the three Civil Misc. Petitions arise out of three separate orders passed on 05.07.2025 in Execution Case No.7 of 2007, by which the objection raised in the execution of decree passed in Title Suit No.14 of 1985 has been rejected.

¶58

2. As the decree has attained finality with respect to plot nos. 1371, 1448 and 944, objection is with respect to the portion in which these areas are situated, as the boundary of the land has not been given.

¶59

3. Opp. Party [Kashida Devi] is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.14 of 1985 which was filed for declaration of right, title and interest on the basis of the gift deed executed in her favour by her mother-in-law, Maheshwari Devi and with a further prayer to declare the sale deed executed by one Ramcharitar Mahto (Defendant No.1) in favour of Law Kumar Upadhyay (Defendant No.2) and Baijnath Singh (Defendant No.3) with respect to Schedule B land to be null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

¶60

4. As per the case of the Plaintiff, Maheshwari Devi W/o Mahang Mahto acquired different plots of land by various registered sale deeds and she executed gift deed in favour of the plaintiff on 28.02.1978, which is detailed in Schedule A of the Plaint.

¶61

5. Mahang Mahto had two sons Ramcharitar Mahto and Sukhdeo Mahto, and Kashida Devi is the wife of Sukhdeo Mahto who is the plaintiff.

¶62

6. Plaintiff claimed the suit property by a gift deed executed by the wife of Mahang Mahto, Maheswari Devi, whereas the present petitioners claim their chain of title through Ramcharitar Mahto in plot no.1448, who gifted 4-1/3 decimal of land to the plaintiff.

¶63

7. The suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff vide judgment dated 11.01.2007 and the said judgment attained finality after dismissal of the Title Appeal No.09 of 2007 on 27.06.2013, Second Appeal No.198 of 2013 was dismissed on 11.01.2022 by the High Court and SLP (Civil) No.9794 of 2022 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dismissed on 20.05.2022. Further, a review petition was also preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Civil Review Petition No.808 of 2022 which was also dismissed on

3

2025:JHHC:33523

02.08.2022.

8. Misc. Case No.32 of 2013 was preferred by the judgment-debtor namely Ramcharitar Mahto under Section 47 of the CPC which was dismissed on 28.02.2014 by the executing court.

¶68

9. The present petitioners viz (1) Ram Lakhan Dubey his wife Asha Devi, (2) Satish Kumar Upadhyay and (3) Tara Devi all claim to have acquired title with respect to the land in plot nos. 1371, 944 and 1448 sold to them by Ramcharitar Mahto.

¶69

C.M.P. No.829 of 2025.

¶70

10. The instant civil misc. petition has been filed by petitioners – Ram Lakhan Dubey and Asha Devi against the order dated 05.07.2025 by which the petition dated 17.04.2025 filed under Section 151 r/w Section 141 of C.P.C registered as Misc Case No.33 of 2013 was rejected on 22.06.2016. W.P.(C) No. 3884 of 2016 was preferred against the order dated 22.06.2016, which was dismissed as withdrawn.

¶71

11. Petitioners again filed objection dated 29.06.2022 under Order XXI Rule 97, 99 and 101 r/w Section 151 of CPC which was rejected. Another objection was filed on 22.12.2024 on similar ground which also ended in dismissal vide order dated 10.01.2025. C.M.P. No.1185 of 2025 has been filed against the same order which is still pending.

¶72

12. Another C.M.P. No.321 of 2025 was filed by the very same petitioner, Ram Lakhan Dubey and Asha Devi against the order which was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.04.2025.

¶73

13. Petitioners again moved the Executing Court under Sections 151 and 141 of CPC, which has been dismissed in view of the matter having been decided in Misc. Case No.32 of 2013 filed by the judgement debtor. The instant civil miscellaneous petition is directed against this order.

¶74

C.M.P. No.849 of 2025.

¶75

14. Petitioner Satish Kumar Upadhayay’s claims title over 2 & ½ decimal of land in plot no.1448 and raised objection petition under Section 151 r/w 141 & Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC which was registered as Misc. Civil Application No. 89 of 2025. Objection has been rejected on the ground that earlier the objection preferred by two purchasers viz Ram Lakhan Dubey and his wife on similar grounds had been rejected in Misc. Case No.33 of 2013. It was held that Petitioner had purchased the portion of suit land from Defendant No.3

¶76

4

¶77

2025:JHHC:33523

¶78

Ramcharitar Mahto during pendency of the suit, whose objection to the execution of the decree had attained finality. Therefore, the objection being raised by this petitioner who was pendente lite purchaser from Ramcharitar Mahto was barred under Order XXI Rule 102 of CPC.

¶79

C.M.P. No.869 of 2025.

¶80

15. Petitioner- Smt. Tara Devi (in C.M.P. No.869 of 2025) had filed Civil Misc. Application No.84 of 2025 on 13.05.2025 under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC before the Executing Court resisting the execution of the decree. Petitioner along with Sheo Pujan Singh claims to have purchased different small area specified within boundaries in Plot No.1371 , Khata No.53, Village- Sudna, PO & PS- Sadar, Daltonganj, District- Palamau from Law Kumar Upadhyay and Baijnath Singh before the Executing Court. Vendors claim to have purchased the 47 ½ decimal of land from Ramcharitar Mahto. After the said purchase, the petitioner came in physical possession of the said land along with the family members.

¶81

16. The petition was rejected, inter-alia , on the ground that earlier on 30.01.2017, petitioner-Tara Devi, Sheo Pujan Singh had filed Misc. Civil Application No. 84/2025 under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC which was rejected, therefore, the subsequent petition was barred under Order XXI Rule 102 of CPC.

¶82

17. Further, a bare perusal of Schedule-B land which was said to be sold by Ramcharitar Mahto to defendant nos. 2 and 3 of the said suit, the description of land, plot nos. 1371, area 28-2/3 decimal, 1448, area 6- 1/3 decimals and 944, area 12-1/2 decimal have been shown.

¶83

18. The sum and substance of the case of the petitioners is that the decree was with respect to 19-1/3 decimals which had a total area of 58 decimals, in plot no. 1371, 04-1/3 decimals in plot no. 1448 which had a total area of 13 decimals,

¶84

5 decimals in plot no. 944 and as the boundary was not given, so it was not clear in which portion of the said plot, the said 19-1/3 decimals, 4-1/3 decimals and 5 decimals of land were available for execution.

¶85

19. The objection petition was rejected on the ground that earlier similar objections were raised by the other purchasers which were rejected and the order of rejection attained its finality. Furthermore, when the officers and the staffs went for execution of the decree, an undertaking was given to vacate the said plot, but later on, the petitioner resiled from it.

¶86

5

¶87

2025:JHHC:33523

¶88

20. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners in C.M.P. No.829 of 2025 that the petitioner- Ram Lakhan Dubey was not a party in the Title Suit and, therefore, the decree was not binding on him. The main contention strenuously argued before this Court on behalf of the petitioners is that as per the decree in the suit land was appertaining to Khata No. 53, Plot No. 1371, area 19-1/3 decimal out of 58 decimal; in Plot No. 1448, area 4-1/3 decimal, in total 13 decimal. No boundary has been mentioned either in the decree or in the schedule of the plaint, therefore, the said portion of the land cannot be identified in the said plot for the due execution of the decree. The object is in peaceful possession of over 7 decimals of land in Plot No. 1371 over which he has constructed house and after mutation, he is in settled possession of the same.

¶89

21. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner in C.M.P. No.869 of 2025 that the petitioner in his possession of the said suit property 6 decimals of land was purchased from Law Kumar Upadhyay and Baijnath Singh on 13.06.1990 and thereafter she got her name duly mutated and house had also been constructed. So far as the present decree is concerned, it is with respect to Khata No. 53, Plot No. 1371, area 28-2/3 decimals and 19-1/3 decimals in Plot No. 1371, whereas this plot comprises an area of 28-2/3 decimal. As no boundary is given, therefore, there is no clarity as to which portion has been decreed land and lies in Plot No. 1371. Further, as the decree holder is in possession of the said plot, therefore, the question of recovery of possession does arise by dispossessing the petitioner.

¶90

FINDING

¶91

22. When a decree is for title and recovery of possession, the title and possession of the objectors who claim it through the judgement debtor cannot be considered by the learned executing court in terms of Order XXI Rule 102 of CPC. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR (2008) SC 1997 Usha Sinha Vs. Dina Ram that the doctrine of lis pendens prohibits a party from dealing with the property, which is the subject matter of suit. It is treated as constructive notice to a purchaser that he is bound by a decree to be entered in the pending suit. Order XXI Rule 102 of CPC, therefore, clarify that there should not be resistance or obstruction by a transferee pendente lite. It has been held in Bhavan Vaja & Ors. v. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang & Anr. , (1973) 2 SCC 40

¶92

6

¶93

2025:JHHC:33523

¶94

“20. It is true that an executing court cannot go behind the decree under execution. But that does not mean that it has no duty to find out the true effect of that decree. For construing a decree it can and in appropriate cases, it ought to take into consideration the pleadings as well as the proceedings leading up to the decree. In order to find out the meaning of the words employed in a decree the Court, often has to ascertain the circumstances under which those words came to be used. That is the plain duty of the execution Court and if that Court fails to discharge that duty it has plainly failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it.”

¶95

23. All the petitioners/objectors claim their title through sale by judgment debtor, Ramcharitar Mahto except for the Petitioner in C.M.P No.869 of 2025, and were pendente lite purchasers therefore their objection is not sustainable and there cannot be further adjudication of their title at the execution stage under Order XXI Rule 102 of CPC. Further, that the objection of Ramcharitar Mahto under Section 47 of CPC had been rejected and attained finality.

¶96

24. So far petitioner in C.M.P. No. 869 of 2025 is concerned, she had purchased the land from Law Kumar and Baijnath Singh shortly after the filing of the present suit in which they were also impleaded as a party along with Ramcharitar Mahto. She being a pendente lite purchaser, objection is not sustainable under Order XXI Rule 102 of C.P.C.

¶97

25. The short question that falls for consideration is whether the decretal property was sufficiently identifiable with reasonable certainty. This is a question that is to be determined by the Executing court. Issue regarding identification of the land has been settled in Misc. Case No. 32/2013 by the Executing Court on 28.02.2014, wherein similar objection was raised by the vendor of the all the petitioners viz- judgment debtor- Ramcharitar Mahto and others under Section 47 of the CPC. The said objection was rejected by the Executing Court by reasoned order stating that Ramcharitar Mahto was examined as DW-14, who stated in para 33 of his cross-examination and had admitted that through four registered sale deeds, Halu Mahto had sold his share in favour of his mother. In para 13 of the plaint, it was categorically stated that 19-1/3 decimals, Plot No. 1371 allotted to Halu Mahto in its southern aspect which was sold by Halu Mahto to Smt. Maheshwari Devi. Similarly, 4-1/3 decimal of land out of 13 decimals of Plot No. 1448, allotted to Halu Mahto, was towards eastern portion of the plot. So, far as plot no. 944 is

¶98

7

¶99

2025:JHHC:33523

¶100

concerned 5 decimal of land out of 12-1/2 decimal towards western side was

¶101

allotted to Halu Mahto. Later on, his sons Bishembhar and Sikheswar transferred it in favour of Maheshwari Devi. The Executing Court thus held that although the specific boundary was not mentioned, but in body of the plaint it was sufficiently explained. This order attained finality.

¶102

26. Under the said facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the view that the instant civil miscellaneous petitions are devoid of any merit. Petitioners claim title from Ramcharitar Mahto against whom the judgement and decree have attained finality. He had also preferred an objection under Section 47 of the CPC, which has also been rejected and thereafter these petitioners in order to delay the execution of the decree have filed the objection petition, which is not sustainable. There is no infirmity in the impugned order.

¶103

All Civil miscellaneous petitions, accordingly, stand dismissed with

¶104

cost.

¶105

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶106

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶107

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 10^th November, 2025 NAFR/ Pawan/AKT

¶108

8

Satish Kumar Upadhyay v. Kashida Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar Upadhyay v. Kashida Devi

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

Wali Haider Vs Ali Raja

Vimla Devi and Anr. Vs the National Insurance Company Limited through Its Branch Manager and Anr.

MD Hussain Vs MD Hemayun

Nitika Tiwari Vs Sishir Chandra Shekhar

Shashi Kant Pandey Vs Ajit Gour

Ram Lakhan Dubey Vs Kashida Devi