Balbir Kaur Vs Smt. Suman Singh

¶1

2026:JHHC:2932

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

C.M.P. No. 24 of 2026

¶4

Balbir Kaur aged about 60 years wife of late Harbhajan Singh,

¶5

Awtar Singh aged about 42 years son of Late Harbhajan Singh

¶6

Jaswinder Kaur aged about 38 years daughter of Late Harbhajan Singh, All are residents of Holding No. 54, Golmuri Market, P.O. and P.S. Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. …....... Petitioners Vrs.

¶7

1.Smt. Suman Singh wife of Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, resident of H. No. D 66, A Block Khuntadih, Sonari, P.O. and P.S. Sonari, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. ……… Applicant/Opposite Party

¶8

Mukul Chandra son of Late Harish Chandra, resident of Bibiganj. Danapur Cantonment, P.O. and P.S. Danapur, District Patna (Bihar).

¶9

3.Haribansh Singh son of Ambika Singh, resident of Holding No. 54, Golmuri Market, P.O. and P.S. Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. .......... Opposite Parties / Performa Opp. Parties

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Petitioners : Mr. Dilip Kr. Chakraverty, Advocate For the O.P. No.1 : Mr. Samir Kumar Lall, Advocate

¶11

03/04.02.2026 The present C.M.P. is directed against the order dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure-7) passed by the learned Civil Judge(Sr.Div.), Jamshedpur in Execution Case No. 148 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the learned Court below has allowed the application filed by the opposite party no.1 under order XXII Rule 10, section 146 and under order XXI, Rule 16 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for execution of decree dated 17.06.2014 passed in Title Suit No. 45 of 2000.

¶12

From the arguments of the parties, it appears that the Title Suit for declaration of right, title, interest and recovery of possession has been filed by the plaintiff on the strength of power of attorney. The real owner of the property is Monaki Devi. The Title Suit being T.S. No. 45 of 2000 has been allowed in favour of the plaintiff by the judgment and decree dated 17.06.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jamshedpur.

¶13

Being aggrieved, two appeals have been filed by the different defendants numbered as Title Appeal No. 33 of 2014 and Title Appeal No. 40 of 2014. Both appeals have been heard together and dismissed by a common judgment dated 01.04.2017 by the court of learned

¶14

C.M.P. No. 24 of 2026

¶15

1

¶16

2026:JHHC:2932

¶17

District Judge-IV, Jamshedpur.

¶18

Being aggrieved, a second appeal has been filed by the present petitioners numbered as S.A. no. 249 of 2017, which has been disposed vide order dated 01.02.2023, which is quoted herein under:

¶19

“ Heard the parties.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent No.1 namely Smt. Monaki Devi died on 21.12.2016 during the pendency of Title Appeal No.33 of 2014. So, the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.04.2017 has been passed against a dead person. It is next submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is a nullity.

¶21

It is a settled principle of law that a decree passed in favour of or against a dead person is a nullity as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kishun alias Ram Kishun (Dead) Through LRS. Vs. Behari (Dead) By LRS., reported in (2005) 6 SCC 300, para-6 of which reads as under:-

¶22

“6. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants and fairly agreed to by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, the decree passed by the High Court in favour of a party who was dead and against a party who was dead, is obviously a nullity. It is conceded that the legal representatives of neither of the parties were brought on record in the second appeal and the second appeal stood abated. On this short ground this appeal is liable to be allowed and the decision of the High Court set aside. (Emphasis supplied).

¶23

Since the impugned judgment and decree itself is admittedly a nullity, hence, this Court is of the considered view that this Second Appeal is not maintainable having been preferred against the impugned judgment which is itself admittedly a nullity.

¶24

Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed, being not maintainable, having been preferred against the judgment which is a nullity.

¶25

In view of the disposal of the instant Second Appeal, interlocutory applications, if any, stand dismissed being infructuous.”

¶26

It appears that thereafter an execution case has been initiated by the opposite party no.1 in Execution Case No. 148 of 2023. It further appears that the said decree holder Monaki Devi died 21.12.2016 and this fact has not been brought on record by the power of attorney holder.

¶27

C.M.P. No. 24 of 2026

¶28

2

¶29

2026:JHHC:2932

¶30

It is further noticeable that the property in question has been sold by the power of attorney holder by sale deed dated 12.10.2011during pendency of the Title Suit No. 45 of 2000.

¶31

Thus, prima facie it appears that the trial has not been properly conducted by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the petitioner has every right to file objection in the execution proceeding being Execution Case No. 148 of 2023 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jamshedpur.

¶32

In that view of the matter, the present C.M.P. is being disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to file proper petition objecting the execution proceeding being Execution Case No. 148 of 2023 in accordance with law.

¶33

While disposing of the present C.M.P., proceeding in connection with Execution Case No. 148 of 2023 pending before the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jamshedpur shall remain stayed for six weeks from today.

¶34

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶35

04.02.2026 A. Mohanty Uploaded

¶36

//2026

¶37

C.M.P. No. 24 of 2026

¶38

3

Balbir Kaur v. Smt. Suman Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Kaur v. Smt. 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

Ved Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi

Sushil Kumar Pathak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Ram Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary, Government of Jharkhand

Kishor Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arbind Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar

Never the Less Lounge and Restaurant, through Its Prorietor Harileen Singh Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department