M/S Shakambari Builders Private Ltd, Through Its Director, Chandresh Bajaj vs State Of Jharkhand Through Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 724 of 2025 .... M/s Shakambari Builders Private Limited, a Company incorporated under Companies Act 1956 having its office at 2nd Floor, Sri Ram Gardens, Kanke Road, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Gonda, District Ranchi through its Director, Chandresh Bajaj, Son of Pawan Bajaj, aged about 34 years, Resident of Flat No. 1002, Sri Ram Gardens, Kanke Road, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Gonda, District Ranchi. ......Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi through his office at O/o Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Ranchi, District Ranchi. 2. Sub-Registrar, Ranchi, officiating from his office at District Land Registry Office, Kutchery Chowk, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 3. Akshay Kumar, Son of Late Manoj Kumar Gupta, Resident of Kedar Market, North Market Road, Upper Bazaar, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi- 834001. ......Respondents ----- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey, AC to AG For the Resp. No.3 : Mr. Anil Kr. Ganjhu, Advocate ...... JUDGEMENT

C.A.V on 18.12.2025 Pronounced on 07.01.2026

The petitioner has made the following prayer in this writ petition:

1 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025

2026:JHHC:2985

"a. For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s)

or direction(s) to hold and declare that the

Respondent Authorities particularly Respondent

No.2 do not have jurisdiction to cancel

Registered Gift Deed No. 2159/86 dated 21st of

February 1986 and to further hold the Deed of

Cancellation bearing No. 7849 dated 11th of July

1990 is null and void and subsequent sale deed

no. 6683 dated 24th of June 1992 by the Donor

of Gift Deed No. 2159/86 dated 21st of February

1986 is null and void in the eye of law.

b. For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s)

or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem

just and proper in the facts and circumstances of

the case doing conscionable justice to the

petitioner."

2. Heard Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey, learned counsel for the State and

Mr. Anil Kr. Ganjhu, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

Cancellation Gift Deed by Kedar Nath Sahu dated 11.07.1990

2 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

(Annexure-4) in the office of Respondent No.2 is illegal, arbitrary

and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that Cancellation of Gift

Deed unilaterally by Kedar Nath Sahu is complete in violation of

the judgment passed in the case of "N. Thajudeen Vs. Tamil

Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board" reported in 2024

SCC OnLine SC 3037 and also in violation of Section 126 of the

Transfer of Property Act. It is submitted that Cancellation Deed

dated 11.07.1990 (Annexure-4) is void and ab initio and could not

have been done unilaterally without informing the Donee in whose

favour Gift Deed dated 21.02.1986 (Annexure-1) was executed.

4. It is submitted that initially Kedar Nath Sahu has executed

a Registered Gift Deed dated 21.02.1986 in favour of Roshan Lal

(Vide Annexure-1) with regard to the Scheduled Property. It is

submitted that Gift was registered in the name of the petitioner on

21.02.1986 by Registered Gift Deed No. 2159/86 dated 21st of

February 1986 in favour of Samrendra Kumar @ Roshan Lal by

Kedar Nath Sahu (i.e. Annexure-1). Thereafter said Samrendra

Kumar @ Roshan Lal sold the Scheduled Property to the petitioner

by Registered Sale Deed dated 11.06.2020 (Annexure-2) on the

consideration amount of Rs.95,00,000/- (Ninety Five Lakhs Only).

However, inadvertently, in the sale deed dated 11th of June 2020

(Annexure-2), the deed number of Gift Deed was inadvertently

3 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

mentioned as 2154 instead of 2159 and therefore a Deed of

Rectification bearing No. 5505 dated 5th of September 2022 was

executed to correct the deed number of the Gift Deed. Thereafter,

the Petitioner got his name mutated in the scheduled property vide

order dated 20th of September 2022 passed in Mutation Case

No. 120R27/2022-23.

5. However, the petitioner learnt recently that Kedar Nath

Sahu, after execution of the Gift Deed bearing No. 2159/86 dated

21st of February 1986 (Annexure-1), executed a unilateral

Cancellation Deed bearing No. 7849 dated 11th of July 1990 by

which the Gift Deed No. 2159/86 dated 21st of February 1986

(Annexure-1) was cancelled.

Thereafter, Kedar Nath Sahu executed a Sale Deed

bearing No. 6683 dated 24th of June 1992 (i.e. Annexure-5) by

which Kedar Nath Sahu sold the Scheduled Property in favour of

his son Manoj Kumar Gupta (father of the Respondent No. 3).

6. It is submitted that Section 123 of the T.P. Act (in short,

T.P. Act) 1882 provides that for the purpose of making gift of

immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered

instrument signed by or on behalf of the Donor, and attested by at

least two witnesses and further, Section 126 of the T.P. Act 1882

provides the conditions when gift can be revoked. As per the said

4 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

section, the Donor and Donee can agree that the gift can be

revoked on happening of any specified event which is not

dependent on the will of the Donor.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon

the order dated 02.12.2011 passed in W.P.(S) No. 393 of 2011 by

the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Prashant Kumar as then His

Lordship was) and submitted that this Court can make judicial

review of the decision and can issue a writ of declaration or issue

declaratory writ.

8. It is further submitted that even the subsequent Sale Deed

dated 24.06.1992 (Annexure-5) is non-est in eye of law and it

cannot be given effect to and hence, the Cancellation of Gift Deed

dated 11.07.1990 (Annexure-4) and subsequent Sale Deed dated

24.06.1992 (Annexure-5) may be set aside and be cancelled and

this Writ Petition may be allowed.

9. Learned counsel for the State submits that Present Writ

Petition is not maintainable. It is submitted that the Registration

Department of the State cannot refuse to register any document

and as such the Cancellation Deed dated 11.07.1990 (Annexure-4)

was properly executed. It is submitted that this Writ Petition has

been filed after delay of 33 years and barred by limitation and on

this ground, this Writ Petition is fit to be dismissed as the

5 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

cancellation was effected on 11.07.1990 (Annexure-4) and the

Writ Petition has been filed in the year, 2025. It is submitted that

Cancellation of Gift Deed cannot be challenged in the Writ

Petition and at best, the petitioner should have approached before

the Civil Court for determination of his right, title and interest.

It is submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court "N. Thajudeen Vs. Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village

Industries Board" reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3037 is not

applicable on the facts and circumstances of this Case.

10. It is submitted that there is no provision conferring power

on the Sub. Registrar/ Registration department official to refuse

registration of any document on the ground that there is a dispute

about title of the property. The cancellation of the gift deed cannot

be challenged in a Writ application and the same has to be

challenged before a competent civil court having jurisdiction.

11. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of "K. Gopi v. Sub- Registrar and Others" reported in 2025

SCC OnLine SC 740 referred to the rule-making power under

Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, conferring power on the

Inspector General to superintend registration offices and make

rules, and held that there is no power conferred on the registering

authority to refuse registration of a document of transfer. The

6 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

details of the gift deed is to be examined by the competent civil

court having jurisdiction over the matter. The registering authority

is not concerned with the title of the executants and he has no

adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title

and hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.3

has opposed the submission of the petitioner. It is submitted that

the instant writ petition is not maintainable and hence, the writ

petition may be dismissed.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has further

submitted that even Roshan Lal i.e. Vendor of the Writ Petitioner

had filed Original Title Suit No. 543 of 2015 (Annexure-3 to the

counter-affidavit) and which later on stood dismissed for default.

14. It is submitted that civil dispute of title cannot be invoked

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and disputed

questions of title or validity of private deeds cannot be adjudicated

in the instant writ petition. In support of the same, learned counsel

for the respondent no.3 has relied upon the judgments in the case

of "Mohd. Hanif Quareshi Vs. State of Bihar" reported in AIR

1958 SC 731, in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhawani

Singh" reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 306 and also in the case

of "Dwarka Prasad Agarwal Vs. Ramesh Chandra" reported in

7 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

(2003) 6 SCC 220.

15. It is further submitted that the Writ Petition has no locus

standi and his Vendor has no title. It is submitted that the Vendor

of the petitioner had filed Civil Suit i.e. Original Title Suit No. 543

of 2015 and the same was dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of

CPC by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi on 16.05.2016. The said

title suit was filed by Roshan Lal @ Samarendra Kumar (Vendor

of the petitioner) against Manoj Kumar Gupta (father of the

respondent). It is submitted that the Sub-Registrar has not

cancelled any Deed rather the Cancellation Deed dated 11.07.1990

(Annexure-4) was executed by the executants (Donor) and not by

the Sub-Registrar. It is submitted that the petitioner has suppressed

the dismissal of Original Title Suit No. 543 of 2015 before this

Court.

16. It is submitted that respondent's father's name was

mutated in the year 1995 and rent has been continuously paid and

the respondent no.3 has constructed the house and the boundary

wall and he is in possession for more than 30 years. It is submitted

that in view of judgment reported in the case of "K.D. Sharma

Vs. SAIL" (2008) 12 SCC 481, non-disclosure of material facts is

sufficient to dismiss the Writ Petition at threshold.

It is further submitted that as Samarendra Kumar @

8 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

Roshan Lal has already lost his title and claim, he could not sell

the property in 2020. It is submitted that a void document confers

no title and can be ignored as has been held in the case of "Prem

Singh Vs. Birbal" reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353 (para-27).

It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in

SLP in the case of "Roshina T. Vs. Abdul Azeez" reported in

(2019) 2 SCC 329 at Para-10 that Title dispute cannot be decided

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner

has the remedy by filing the Title Suit and not by way of Writ

Petition.

17. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent

no. 3 that Cancellation Gift Deed was executed by the Donor

Kedar Nath Sahu vide Cancellation Deed No. 7849/1990 on

11.07.1990 (Annexure-4) and Gift deed is revocable if the Donor

retains right or if beneficiary fails conditions. Thereafter,

Kedar Nath Sahu executed Sale Deed in the year 1992 in Favour

of his son Manoj Kumar Gupta who is respondent no.3 vide Sale

Deed No. 6683 dated 24.06.1992 (Annexure-5). Thereafter the

name of respondent no. 3 was mutated in the year 1995 and he is

paying continuous rent receipt to the erstwhile State of Bihar and

then the State of Jharkhand. It is submitted that the respondent

no.3 is in peaceful possession and has construction over the land

9 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

and therefore title and possession vested absolutely in the

Respondent's predecessor.

18. It is further submitted that land measuring an area of

10 Kathas equivalent of 16.53 decimals little more or less being

portion of R.S Plot No. 556 marked as Sub Plot 556/B under

Khata 202 corresponding to Municipal Survey Plot No. 540

situated at village Hatma, Thana Ranchi Thana No. 200 was

purchased by father of Respondent No.3 by virtue of registered

sale deed no. 7113/6683 dated 24.06.1992 from Kedar Nath Sahu

who also happens to be father of the aforesaid purchaser and

accordingly name of Manoj Kumar Gupta was mutated vide

mutation case no. 28 R 27/1995-96 dated 18.05.1995 and paying

rent to the state.

19. It is submitted that Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi after

giving the adequate opportunity and after hearing the both the

parties has cancelled the order passed by the Ld. L.R.D.C, Ranchi

vide its judgement dated 06.12.2022 in Mutation Revision case

No. 45R 15/2022-23.

20. It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 has also filed one

complaint case being no Complain case no. 10303/2021 against

the present petitioner and his associates under

Sections 419/420/467/468/471/323 /120(B)/34 IPC before

10 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

the Ld court of Miss Rosaline Bara, JM, Ranchi and the Ld court

has been pleased to take cognizance of the matter and pending the

court for appearance.

Hence, this Writ Petition may be dismissed.

21. Although the learned counsel for the respondents has

relied several judgments in its pleading while filing the Counter-

affidavit on 24.11.2025 but none of the judgments were produced

during the argument of the case. However, this Court has gone

through the judgments mentioned in the Counter-affidavit filed by

the Respondent No.3.

It also appears that due to inadvertence on the part of

learned counsel for the respondent no.3, the father of petitioner is

mentioned instead of father of respondent no.3 in paragraph nos.9,

10 and 12 of the counter-affidavit dated 24.11.2025.

22. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from

going through the records, it appears that the petitioner has filed

the instant writ petition for declaring that respondent no.2

(i.e. Sub-Registrar, Ranchi) has no jurisdiction to cancel

Registered Gift Deed dated 21.02.1986 (Annexure-1) and for

declaring the subsequent Sale Deed dated 11.07.1990

(Annexure-4) and sale deed dated 24.06.1992 (Annexure-5) are

void. It has been prayed that Cancellation Deed dated 11.07.1990

11 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

(Annexure-4) executed by Kedar Nath Sahu in favour of Manoj

Kumar Gupta is null and void.

23. It transpires that initially one Late Kedar Nath Sahu had

executed a Registered Deed of Gift dated 21.02.1986

(i.e. Annexure-1) in favour of one Roshan Lal (i.e. Vendor of the

Petitioner) who was the son of Shri Jyotindra Nath Ganju

@ Jogendra Nath and the daughter of Kedar Nath Sahu (Vendor of

the petitioner) was the eldest daughter and Shri Jyotindra Nath

Ganju @ Jogendra Nath was the husband of Smt. Indira Kashyap.

Thus, Roshan Lal was very close relation of the Donor Kedar Nath

Sahu. There is a recital in the Gift Deed that being extremely

happy with the services of his daughter Smt. Indira Kashyap and

her nephew Roshan Lal for whom he has great love and affection

and also being close relative, the Donor with the consent of all

members of his family had executed Gift Deed dated 21.02.1986

valued at Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) and the Deed of Gift was

absolute and unconditionally forever and he had delivered

possession of the same to him (i.e. Roshan Lal).

24. It is also averred that Donor (i.e. Kedar Nath Sahu who

was the father of the late Manoj Kumar Gupta and Grandfather of

the present Respondent No.3) had executed the Gift Deed.

25. It has been averred in para-2 and 3 that Donee

12 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

(i.e. Roshan Lal) had accepted the Gift and had taken possession

of the same. The Donor has further expressed his desire that the

Donee shall have all right, title and interest in the property gifted

to and accepted by him and who shall hold and enjoy the same and

all the right, title and interest which was vested in the property

shall henceforth vest in the Donee to whom the said property has

been gifted absolutely and unconditionally.

26. Thus, the right, title interest and possession had passed

from the Donor to the Donee. The above Gift Deed dated

21.02.1986 (Annexure-1) was executed between the Donor and

Donee in the office of the Sub-Registrar- Respondent No.2.

27. However, later on Donor Kedar Nath Sahu had executed

the Cancellation Deed dated 11.07.1990 bearing Deed No. 7849

dated 11.07.1990 (Annexure-4) by which, the Registered Gift

Deed dated 21.02.1986 (Annexure-1) executed in favour of the

petitioner, was cancelled and he had stated as follows:

(I) it was not a Deed of Gift rather it was a Sale Deed,

(II) the Cancellor had promised to pay Rs. 4,00,000/-

(Four Lakhs) within two (2) years of the Registration of

Deed (Gift Deed) and then only the possession of

property given in the Schedule shall be delivered but

Cancellor (Roshan Lal) did not pay a single pie towards

13 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

consideration price to the Cancellor (Kedar Nath Sahu),

(III) Deed of Gift was executed by false representation

and by practicing fraud,

(IV) Cancellor has no right any title over any portion of

the landed property by virtue of alleged Deed of Gift.

Because the Registration has been effected by false and

fraud presentation and no consideration has passed.

28. It further transpires that subsequently said Kedar Nath

Sahu had executed a Registered Sale Deed dated 24.06.1992

(Annexure-5) in favour of own Son Manoj Kumar Gupta on

valuation of Suit Property of Rs. 35,000/- (Thirty Five Thousand).

29. A question has been raised also by the respondents as to

whether Writ Petition will be maintainable or not.

30. For better appreciation of this case it will be relevant to

quote Section 122, Section 123 and Section 126 of the T.P. Act

which read as follows:

"Section 122. "Gift" defined.- "Gift" is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the done.

Acceptance when to be made.- Such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and

14 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

while he is still capable of giving.

If the done dies before acceptance, the gift is void. Section-123- For the purpose of making gift of immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses.

For the purpose of making a gift of movable property, the transfer may be effected either by a registered instrument signed as aforesaid or by delivery.

Such delivery may be made in the same way as goods sold may be delivered.

"Section-126- The Donor and Donee may agree that on the happening of any specified event which does not depend upon the will of the Donor, a gift shall be suspended or revoked, bit a gift which the parties agree shall be revocable wholly or in part, at the mere will of the Donor, is void or in part, as the case may be-

A gift may also be revoked in any of the cases (save want of failure of consideration) in which, if it were a contract, it might be rescinded. Save as aforesaid, a gift cannot be revoked. Nothing contained in this Section shall be deemed to affect the rights of transferees for consideration without notice."

31. Section 54 of the T.P. Act defines Sale and shows as to

15 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

how the Sale has to be made whereas Section 55 describes rights

and liabilities of the buyer and seller in elaborate and as per rights

and liabilities of the buyer and seller, a seller is bound to disclose

all material defect in the property or also with regard to Seller's

Title to which the buyer may not be aware and he could not

discover and the seller is bound to answer to the best of the

information all relevant questions put to him by the buyer in

respect to the property or to the title thereto in the light of

provisions of Section 55(1)(a)(b)(c) in question. However, late

Kedar Nath Sahu vide the Registered Sale Deed dated 24.06.1992

has failed to do so and failed to inform about execution of

Registered Deed of Gift dated 21.02.1986 (Annexure-1) and also

the execution of Registered Deed of Cancellation dated 11.07.1990

(i.e. Annexure-4) in the subsequent Sale Deed dated 24.06.1992

(i.e. Annexure-5).

32. At this stage, it is relevant to refer the contents of the

Registered Gift Deed dated 21.02.1986 (Annexure-1) from Para-1

to 5 and 8 and Schedule Page-10, which read as follows:

"Para-1: That in consideration of the natural love and affection the Donor had and still has for the Donee the later being his close relative, the Donor, with the consent of all members of his family does hereby and hereunder grant, transfer, convey, give

16 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

and assure by way of gift unto and to the use of the DONEE freely and voluntarily, the property mentioned and described in paragraph five of this document, and valued at 10,000/ (Rupees ten thousand) only to Have and Hold the same for his sole use and benefit, absolutely and unconditionally for ever and delivered possession of the same to him.

Para-2: That the Donee having accepted the said Gift has taken over the possession of the same. Para-3: That Donee shall have all right, title and interest in the property gifted to and accepted by him, and shall HOLD and ENJOY the same without let, obstruction, claim or demand, whatsoever from the DONOR or any body claiming through or under him, and all the right, title and interest which vested in the property shall henceforth vest in the DONEE to whom the said property has been gifted absolutely and unconditionally.

Para-4: That the Donor has assured the Donee that the property hereby gifted is free from all kinds of charges or encumbrances, liens or attachments and that there is absolutely no defect in title. He has further assured the DONEE that the aforesaid DONOR is the absolute owner of the property fully described in paragraph five of this document, and has full subsisting right to transfer the same absolutely.

17 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

Para-5: That the DONOR has not, at any time, done or permitted any act, deed or matter by reason of which the property transferred by these presents by way of gift or any part thereof or interest therein has been charged, mortgaged, sold, exchanged or transferred in any other way, nor has entered into agreement with any party to sell the same, prior to the execution of this Deed of Gift. Para-8: That the DONOR further undertakes to take all actions, and to execute all documents required to be done or executed for fully assuring the right, title and interest of the DONEE to the property hereby transferred by way of Gift. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the DONOR has executed this Deed of Gift on the date, month and year aforesaid, after getting the document read over and explained and after fully understanding the implication of the transaction in presence of the Witnesses named below, who have also signed hereunder, and the DONEE has also executed this Deed in token of his acceptance of the said Gift.

SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of land falling within holding no. 46/43 (New), Ward No.-1 under khata No. 65, Plot No.-556, Sub Plot no. 56/B Area 10 Kathas as approximately more or less, Right chhaparbandi on structure kutcha house 3 rooms, chhaparbandi Rent Rs. 5/- (Rupees five) of village Gonda, Hatma, P.S. and Dist.-Ranchi, P.S. No.

18 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

200, Ranchi.

33. It further reveals that the aforesaid Registered Gift Deed

dated 21.02.1986 (Annexure-1) was cancelled by Registered

Cancellation Deed dated 11.07.1990 (Annexure-4). The typed

copy of the Registered Cancellation Deed dated 11.07.1990 has

been enclosed as Annexure-4 and the same read as follows:-

"This deed of cancellation made today the 11th day of July 1990 (One thousand Nine hundred Ninety) at Ranchi ......... between .......... Kedar Nath Sahu aged about 50 years of Indian National son of Late Shri Mathura Prasad Sahu resident of Mohalla North Market Road Upper Bazaar Ranchi in the town and District Ranchi by profession cultivator and businessman hereinafter called as the cancellor of the first part .................... AND ................ Shri Roshan Lal aged about 21 years of Indian National son of Shri Jogendra, resident of Sheikhpura, Patna, P.S.-Phulwari, District-Patna, (Hereinafter called) the cancellor of the other part. the terms cancellor and cancellor unless repugnant (P/2)i to excluded to the contract shall mean include their respective heirs legal representatives successors in interest executor administrators and legal assigns, whereas the cancellor with respect to the landed property referred in the schedule below by a registered deed of Gift dated 21.02.1986 executed and registered at Ranchi. Which has been duly entered in the Book No.-I,

19 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

Volume No.-95, Pages-381 to 391 deed no.- 2159/86 in the office of the District Sub Registrar, Ranchi and whereas as a matter of fact the cancellor has sold the landed property referred to in the schedule below to the cancellor for a consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs (Rupees Four Lakhs) only.

And whereas the cancellors represented the cancellor that since his father is in Government Service there may occasion enquiry regarding the decree of money acquired for payment of the consideration price of the transfer may be made by deed of Gift. And whereas the cancellor had (P/13) promised to pay the consideration price amounting to Rs. 4 lakhs (Rupees four lakhs) only within two years of the registration of the deed and then only the possession of the properties given in the schedule below shall be delivered and whereas the possession of the property referred in the schedule below always remained with the cancellor as the cancellor did not pay a single pai towards the consideration price to the cancellor. And whereas the rectical made in the deed of the Gift referred to above the contents of which are all false and manufactured with ulterior motive in And whereas he property referred to in the schedule below is a joint family coparcenary property where the cancellor has limited interest.

Now this deed of cancellation witnesses as

20 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

follow that since he deed of Gift was a deed of sale but was executed as Deed of Gift by false representation and by practicing fraud by the landed property referred to in the schedule below and also as a matter of fact not a single pai towards the consideration price has been paid by the cancellor to the cancellor the cancellor hereby cancellor the alleged Deed of Gift registered on (P/14) 21.02.1986 in the office of the District Sub- Registrar, Ranchi which has been entered in Book No.-I, Volume No.-95, pages-381 to 391 Deed 2159/86 and further declares that the cancellor has not derived any title over any portion of the landed property referred in the schedule below by virtue of the alleged deed of Gift referred above as the registration has been affected by false presentation and fraud and no consideration has passed."

34. The respondent nos.1 and 2 have taken the stand that

Sub-Registrar, Registration Department cannot refuse registration

of any document on the ground of dispute regarding title of the

property.

35. It transpires that the identity of parties is not disputed.

However, the learned counsels for the State and Respondent No.3

have mainly argued that there is a delay of 33 (Thirty Three) years

and instant of filing Writ Petition the petitioner ought to have

21 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

moved before the learned Civil Court.

36. So far as filing of Writ Petition is concerned, this Court is

of the view that a person who has got his title over the property

need not go to prove his positive title before the Civil Court or its

establishing and affecting his title by way of suit by filing a title

suit as it amounts to proving a positive fact by presenting himself

of having cloud over the title of the property in question. The suit

has to be filed by those who have lost his title and it is for the

canceller (late Kedar Nath Sahu) or his successor (late Manoj

Kumar Gupta) or Akshay Kumar (i.e. Respondent No.3) to prove

their title before the Court below for declaring his right, title and

interest over the property in question by filing a Civil Suit for

adjudication of his right, title and interest.

37. It is further evident that the Respondent No.2 i.e.

Sub-Registrar is statutory body and has to comply with the

Provisions of Sections 122, 123 and 126 of the T.P. Act and also to

perform duty under the Collectorate.

38. Had it been a case of Gift on plain paper then the Writ

Petitioner was required to move before the Civil Courts by filing a

suit for adjudication of his right, title, interest and possession over

the property in question. But when the Statutory body like

Sub- Registrar acting under the provisions of Section 6 and 7 of

22 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

the Indian Registration Act on behalf of the State Government,

then information/notice was required to be given to the Donee

(Roshan Lal).

39. The Registered Deed of Gift involves the Donor, Donee

and the Sub-Registrar of the concerned District and the presence

of all three (03) can be gathered from the Deed of Gift and thus the

Deed of Cancellation dated 11.07.1990 (Annexure-4) in absence of

the Donee (Roshan Lal) and only in presence of Donor (late Kedar

Nath Sahu) and the Sub-Registrar, Ranchi is an invalid document

and cannot be given effect to in absence of Donee (Shri Roshan

Lal).

40. It further appears that after Deed of Cancellation executed

on 11.07.1990 (Annexure-4) by late Kedar Nath Sahu in a

clandestine manner and unilaterally in presence of Sub-Registrar,

late Kedar Nath Sahu had executed the Sale Deed dated

24.06.1992 (Annexure-5) in favour of his own son late Manoj

Kumar Gupta on receipt of consideration amount of Rs.35,000/-

with respect to land of Khata No.55, R.S. Plot No. 556 and M.S.

Plot No.540, Area 10 Kathas having Holding No. 46-A in Ranchi

Municipal Corporation in the said Sale Deed dated 24.06.1992 late

Kedar Nath Sahu has referred merely acquisition of property by

way of partition without mentioning the Partition Suit No. 70 of

23 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

1943 and for which final Deed was prepared on 30.01.1946 and

has further not mentioned the later Title (Partition) Suit No.122/

1965 which ended into compromise decree dated 22.11.1965 and

late Kedar Nath Sahu has concealed the said facts. Further, late

Kedar Nath Sahu has also not referred the Original Registered

Deed of Gift dated 21.02.1986 (Annexure-1 of the writ petition)

and Deed of Cancellation dated 11.07.1990 (Annexure-4 of the

writ petition) by selling his land to his own son late Manoj Kumar

Gupta on receipt of consideration amount of Rs.35,000/- (Thirty

Five Thousand) only. Therefore, the Sale Deed dated 24.06.1992

(Annexure-5) is completely illegal, void ab-initio and without

jurisdiction.

41. It appears from the counter-affidavit filed by the

Respondent No.2 i.e. State representing District Sub-Registrar that

they have merely taken the plea that there is no provision

conferred upon the Sub-Registrar/Registration Department Official

to refuse registration of any document on the ground of dispute

about title of the property.

This Court is of the view that this plea is also not tenable

in view of the fact the Sub-Registrar, Ranchi was party in

Registered Deed of Gift dated 21.02.1986 (Annexure-1) and as

such at the time of executing Deed of Cancellation

24 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

dated 11.07.1990 (Annexure-4), it was incumbent upon the

Sub-Registrar, Ranchi also to enquire whereabouts of the original

Donee Shri Roshan Lal and has also informed him regarding

intention of his Donor Late Kedar Nath Sahu to execute the Deed

of Cancellation but he failed to do so.

Therefore, an authority constituted under the provisions of

Section 6 and 7 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 has failed to

discharge its legal duties.

42. From perusal of the Counter-affidavit filed by Respondent

No.3, it appears that they have taken various pleas which has been

discussed above but they failed to state as to how the Registered

Gift Deed dated 21.02.1986 (Annexure-1) was cancelled validly.

Mere giving statement that Gift Deed dated 21.02.1986

(Annexure-1) was cancelled validly, is not sufficient because it is

evident that the Original Donee i.e. Shri Roshan Lal @

Samarendra Kumar who was not present before the Sub-Registrar,

Ranchi at the time of execution of Deed of Cancellation dated

11.07.1990 (Annexure-4) by Shri Kedar Nath Sahu (i.e. Donor of

Annexure-1).

43. Similarly taking the plea of execution of Sale Deed in

1992 in favour of Manoj Kumar Gupta by Donor late Kedar Nath

Sahu is not sufficient. The Sale Deed dated 24.06.1992

25 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

(Annexure-5) is completely void and no valid possession could be

given as the Predecessor had himself no right, title and possession

over the property in question.

44. It further transpires from the counter-affidavit of the

Respondent No.3 that late Kedar Nath Sahu had executed Sale

Deed dated 24.06.1992 (Annexure-5) and the name of Manoj

Kumar Gupta was mutated vide Mutation No. 28 R 27/1995-96

dated 18.05.1995 and is paying rent to the State till date and

against those, the documents as Annexure-1 (one) series (instead

of Annexure-A series) as Respondent No.3. The Documents

enclosed at page-26 and 27 of the counter-affidavit of Respondent

No.3 is too blur to be read. Thereafter they have enclosed the Deed

of Cancellation dated 11.07.1990 (Annexure-4) from page-28 to

31 (as part of Annexure-1 series by the Respondent No.3) and also

enclosed the rent receipt for the period 06.08.2016, 26.05.2018,

10.10.2019, 15.04.2020, 03.02.2022 and 05.04.2022 respectively

though rent receipt shows Mutation Case No. 26 R 27/1995-96

dated 18.05.1995. Annexure-2 (instead of Annexure-B) with the

Holding Tax Receipt dated 27.01.2022 issued by Ranchi

Municipal Corporation in favour of Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta.

45. It further reveals that Respondent No.3 has also taken the

plea that Roshan Lal @ Samarendra Kumar (i.e. Vendor of the

26 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

Writ Petitioner) had preferred Original Title Suit No. 543 of 2015

against Manoj Kumar Gupta (i.e. father of petitioner) before the

Court of learned Sub- Judge-I, Ranchi for declaration of his right,

title and interest over the suit property acquired by virtue of

Registered Gift Deed and for grant of perpetual injunction and for

restraining the defendant and diligence and legal representatives

etc. from interfering with the uninterrupted possession of the

plaintiff over the suit property and for grant of other ancillary

reliefs and the copy of plaint of Original Title Suit No. 543 of

2015 is enclosed as Annexure-3 (instead of Annexure-C by the

Respondent No.3) from page-34 to 41. Page- 42 to 44 is the order-

sheets. However, the said Original Title Suit No. 543 of 2015

remained defective and defects were not removed and ultimately

on 16.05.2016 the said O.S. No. 543 of 2015 was rejected under

Order-VII Rule-11 of CPC by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi

which offer does not affect be correct as the plaintiff had not

removed the defects and which have been enclosed

i.e. page-42 to 44.

46. It appears from the Counter-affidavit filed by the

Respondent No.3 that Respondent No.3 had filed Revision Case

No. 45 R 15/2022-2023 before the DC, Ranchi (Annexure-4

instead of Annexure-D) challenging the order dated 17.06.2022

27 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

passed in Misc. Case (Jamabandhi Cancellation) Case

No. 05/2021-22, T.R. No. 02/2022-23 by the D.C.L.R, Sadar,

Ranchi. However, the DC, Ranchi has also cancelled and set aside

the order dated 17.06.2022 passed by the D.C.L.R in the aforesaid

case by remitting the matter back to D.C.L.R. to pass afresh order.

The order dated 16.12.2022 passed in Revision Case No. 45 R

15/2022-23 is enclosed as Annexure-4 in this Counter-affidavit

filed Respondent No.3.

47. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.09.2024 the D.C.L.R,

Sadar, Ranchi had recalled its order dated 17.06.2022 after hearing

both the sides, and had dismissed the Misc. Case No. 05 of 2021-

22, T.R. No. 02/2022-23 filed by the Samarendra Kumar @

Roshan Lal and directed Samarendra Kumar @ Roshan Lal or any

party aggrieved by the order to move before Civil Court or

cancellation of Gift Deed/Sale Deed or Jamabandhi.

48. From perusal of the order dated 16.12.2022 passed by

D.C., Ranchi (Annexure-4 of the Counter-affidavit) and the order

dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure-5 enclosed from page-52 to 56 of the

counter-affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3), the D.C.L.R,

Sadar, Ranchi it appears that the name of Roshan Lal @

Samarendra Kumar was entered into and the name of Roshan Lal

@ Samarendra Kumar was mutated in the Revenue Records vide

28 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

Mutation Case No. 304 R 27/1994-95 initially and thereafter the

father of Respondent No.3 had applied for Mutation giving rise to

Mutation Case No. 28 R 27/1995-96 and which was also allowed.

Thus, it is evident that name of Roshan Lal @ Samarendra Kumar

was mutated earlier in the Revenue Records by then D.C.L.R,

Ranchi vide Mutation Case No. 304 R 27/1994-95 initially and

only after mutation of his name, the father of Respondent No. 3

Manoj Kumar Gupta had filed Mutation Case No. 28 R 27/1995-

96 and his name was again mutated.

49. Therefore, it is evident that the Registered Gift Deed

21.02.1986 (Annexure-1) was acted upon by then D.C.L.R.,

Ranchi in Mutation Case No. 304 R 27/1994-95 and name of

Roshan Lal @ Samarendra Kumar was mutated but later on

subsequently the name of father- Respondent No.3 was again

mutated which gave rise to creation of double Jamabandhi.

50. Therefore, from the discussion made above, it is evidently

clear that the Writ Petitioner has been kept in dark even by his

Vendor Roshan Lal @ Samarendra Kumar by executing Registered

Sale Deed dated 11.06.2020 (Annexure-2) on receipt of payment

of consideration amount of Rs.95,00,000/- (Ninety Five Lakhs)

with regard to property in question and later on it was also

rectified vide Sale Deed dated 05.09.1992 as contained in

29 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

Annexure-2 series of the writ petition because in the First Sale

Deed dated 11.06.2020 the Deed Number of Gift Deed

dated 21.02.1986 was inadvertently mentioned as 2154 instead of

2159 and hence Deed of rectification bearing No. 5505

dated 05.09.2022 was executed. Even the correction slip was

issued on 20.09.2022 (Annexure-3) by the Revenue Authorities in

Mutation Case No. 120R27/2022-23.

51. Even from perusal of Annexure-5 of this Counter-affidavit

(filed by Respondent No.3), it is evidently clear that even the

D.C.L.R. Sadar, Ranchi was not sure as to which party should

move before Civil Court because he has referred in his order in the

operative portion as Gift Deed/Sale Deed or for cancellation of

Jamabandhi although he has ordered Registration of Jamabandhi

No. 28 R 27/1995-96 created in favour of Manoj Kumar Gupta

(i.e. father of Respondent No.3) by ignoring the fact that the

Registered Deed of Gift dated 21.02.1986 (Annexure-1) was

executed in favour of Roshan Lal @ Samarendra Kumar and the

name of Roshan Lal @ Samarendra Kumar was mutated vide

Mutation Case No. 304 R 27/1994-95.

52. So far as judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for

the Respondent No.3 is concerned, it has been pleaded in the

counter-affidavit that in the case of "Roshina T. Vs. Abdul 30 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

Azeez" reported in (2019) 2 SCC 329 the title dispute cannot be

decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

53. This Court is of the view that so far as judgment relied

upon by the respondent no.3 in the case of "Roshina T. Vs. Abdul

Azeez K.T. And Others" reported in (2019) 2 SCC 329 is

concerned, the same is not applicable and in favour of the

Respondent No.3 on the facts and in the circumstances of this case

because in the above case the plea of alternative remedy was

raised after filing of writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. In the above case that prior to filing of writ

petition before High Court of Madhya Pradesh one title suit was

filed earlier between the parties by the appellant of said case in

Civil Suit No. 807 of 2014 and the respondent of the said case had

appeared in the said title suit and the said suit was pending in the

Court of Munsif at Kozhikode and as such the Supreme Court had

given liberty to the parties to file civil proceeding in the Civil

Court for claiming appropriate relief with regard to ownership and

possession of the flat in question. Thus, the above judgment

(2019) 2 SCC 329 is not applicable in case of Respondent No.3.

54. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 has also

pleaded that Samarendra Kumar @ Roshan Lal had already lost

his title and claim and he could not sell the property in the year

31 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

2020. It is submitted that in view of judgment passed in the case of

"Prem Singh Vs. Birbal" reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353, a void

document confers no title and can be ignored and remedy of the

petitioner is to file a suit not the Writ Petition and which has also

pleaded in Para- 8.3 of the Counter-affidavit filed by the

Respondent No.3.

It is further evident that even the Respondent No.3 has

admitted during his pleading at Para-8.3 of his counter-affidavit

filed on 24.11.2025 that a void document confers no title and has

to be ignored as has been held in the case of "Prem Singh Vs.

Birbal" reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353.

55. It has also been submitted that in view of the judgment

reported in "Mohd. Hanif Quareshi Vs. State of Bihar" reported

in AIR 1958 SC 731 that Writ jurisdiction is not meant to

adjudicate private disputes relating to title or contracts.

56. So far as the judgment passed in the case of "Mohd.

Hanif Quareshi Vs. State of Bihar and analogous cases"

reported in AIR 1958 SC 731: 1957 SCC OnLine SC 17: 1959

SCR 629 is concerned, the same is also not applicable on the facts

and in the circumstances of this case because in the above case the

questions for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was

to consider the Constitutional validity of the Bihar Act, U.P. Act

32 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

and M.P. Act, which were enacted for banning the slaughter of

certain animals like cow, buffalo, bullocks and muslim

communities have challenged the legislative enactments of the

said Act by filing writ petition directed under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that so far as it prohibits

the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of

buffaloes, male and female, is constitutionally valid and we hold

that, in so far as it totally prohibits the slaughter of she- buffaloes,

breeding bulls and working bullocks (cattle and buffalo), without

prescribing any test or requirement as to their age or usefulness, it

infringes the rights of the petitioners under Art. 19 (1) (g) and is to

that extent void.

However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Act is

valid as it regulates the slaughter of other animals under

certificates granted by the authorities therein. The operative

portion of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court read at

paragraphs- 44 to 48 as follows:-

"Para-44: The next question is as to what should be the scope of the ban on the slaughter of animals. One view is that the slaughter of all animals (cattle and buffaloes) of all categories should be regulated by the State and that animals below a specified age or

33 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

not suffering from some natural deformity should not be allowed to be slaughtered. Drastic and stringent regulations have been imposed by municipal laws and have been tried but experience shows that they are not sufficient at least to protect the cow. It has been found to be extremely difficult to enforce the regulations for inadequacy of staff and veterinary inspectors, little or no check on the veterinary inspectors who succumb to the pressure or inducements of the butchers and pass animals not really useless as and for useless and aged animals. A large percentage of the animals not fit for slaughter are slaughtered surreptitiously outside the municipal limits. For reasons of economy rapacious gowalas or callous agriculturists find it uneconomical to maintain the dry cow and even resort to cruel practices and maim the cow in order to get her passed for slaughter. As already stated, the she- buffalo and the breeding bulls and working bullocks (both cattle and buffaloes) for their value, present and future, do not ruin the same amount of danger as a dry cow does. Regulation of slaughter of animals above a specified age may not be quite adequate protection for the cow but may be quite sufficient for the breeding bulls and working bullocks and the she- buffaloes. These considerations induce us to make an exception even in favour of the old and decrepit cows. The counsel for the petitioners, be it said to their credit, did not contend otherwise.

34 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

Para-45: After giving our most careful and anxious consideration to the pros and cons of the problem as indicated and discussed above and keeping in view the presumption in favour of the validity of the legislation and without any the least disrespect to the opinions of the legislatures concerned we feel that in discharging the ultimate responsibility cast on us by the Constitution we must approach and analyse the problem in an objective and realistic manner and then make our pronouncement on the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by the impugned enactments. So approaching and analysing the problem, we have reached the conclusion (i) that a total ban on the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of she-buffaloes, male and female, is quite reasonable and valid and is in consonance with the directive principles laid down in Art. 48, (ii) that a total ban on the slaughter of she-buffaloes or breeding bulls or working bullocks (cattle as well as buffaloes) as long as they are as milch or draught cattle is also reasonable and valid and (iii) that a total ban on the slaughter of she- buffaloes, bulls and bullocks (cattle or buffalo) after they cease to be capable of yielding milk or of breeding or working as draught animals cannot be supported as reasonable in the interest of the general public.

35 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

Para-46: We now proceed to test each of the impugned Acts in the light of the aforesaid conclusions we have arrived at The Bihar Act, in so far as it prohibits the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of buffaloes, male and female, is valid. The Bihar Act makes no distinction between she-buffaloes, bulls and bullocks (cattle and buffaloes) which are useful as milch or breeding or draught animals and those which are not and indiscriminately prohibits slaughter of she-buffaloes, bulls and bullocks (cattle and buffalo) irrespective of their age or usefulness. In our view the ban on slaughter of she-buffaloes, breeding bulls and working bullocks (cattle. and buffalo) which are useful is reasonable but of those which are not useful is not valid. The question as to when a she-buffalo, breeding bull or working bullock (cattle and buffalo) ceases to be useful and becomes useless and unserviceable is a matter for legislative determination. There is no provision in the Bihar Act in that behalf. Nor has our attention been drawn to any rule which may throw any light on the point. It is, therefore, not possible to apply the doctrine of severability and uphold the ban on the slaughter of she- buffaloes, breeding bulls and working bullocks (cattle and buffalo) which are useful as milch or breeding or working animals and strike down the ban on the slaughter of those which are useless. The entire provision banning the slaughter of she-

36 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

buffaloes, breeding bulls, and working bullocks (cattle and buffalo) has, therefore, to be struck down. The result is that we uphold and declare that the Bihar Act in so far as it prohibits the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of buffaloes, male and female, is constitutionally valid and we hold that, in so far as it totally prohibits the slaughter of she- buffaloes, breeding bulls and working bullocks (cattle and buffalo), without prescribing any test or requirement as to their age or usefulness, it infringes the rights of the petitioners under Art. 19 (1) (g) and is to that extent void.

Para-47: As regards the U. P. Act we uphold and declare, for reasons already stated, that it is constitutionally valid in so far as it prohibits the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows, male and female, but we hold that in so far as it purports to totally prohibit the slaughter of breeding bulls and working bullocks without prescribing any test or requirement as to their age or usefulness, it offends against Art. 19 (1) (g) and is to that extent void.

Para-48: As regards the Madhya Pradesh Act we likewise declare that it is constitutionally valid in so far as it prohibits the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows, male and female, but that it is void in so far as it totally prohibits the slaughter of

37 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

breeding bulls and working- bullocks without prescribing any test or requirement as to their age or usefulness. We also hold that the Act is valid in so far as it regulates the slaughter of other animals under certificates granted by the authorities mentioned therein."

Thus the above judgment is not applicable in the facts and

circumstances of this case and not also in favour of the

Respondent No.3.

57. It is well settled from the case of "Whirlpool

Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors."

reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 that the High Court has got power to

issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. The power can be exercised by the High Court not only for

issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,

prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari but also for "any other

purpose".

58. It has been held in the case of "Whirlpool Corporation

Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors." reported in

(1998) 8 SCC 1 at Para-14, 15 and 20 as follows:

"Para-14: The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing

38 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose".

Para-15: Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.

Para-20: Much water has since flown under the

39 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

bridge, but there has been no corrosive effect on these decisions which, though old, continue to hold the field with the result that law as to the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in spite of the alternative statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where the authority against whom the writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation."

59. However in the present case the title of the land is not in

dispute which was executed by Gift of Deed dated 21.02.1986

(Annexure-1) in favour of Roshan Lal @ Samarendra Kumar who

is Vendor of Writ Petitioner.

60. A person is not required to prove his title in a negative

manner and hence there is no delay in filing of the writ petition by

the Writ Petitioner as the writ petition can be filed only if the title

is shown adverse to him.

61. It has been held in the case of "Hemaji Waghaji Jat Vs.

Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Ors." reported in (2009)

16 SCC 517 that even in the case of adverse possession, a party

claiming adverse possession must prove his possession in

continuity and in publicity and in extent to show that their

possession is adverse to the true owner.

40 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025

2026:JHHC:2985

62. It has been held in the case of "Hemaji Waghaji Jat Vs.

Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Ors." reported in (2009)

16 SCC 517 at Para- 20 and 21 as follows:

"Para-20: In Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India at para 11, this Court observed as under: (SCC p. 785) "11. In the eye of the law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. It is a well-settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is 'nec vi, nec clam, nec precario', that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period."

The Court further observed that: (SCC p. 785,

41 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

para 11) "11. ... Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession."

Para-21: In Saroop Singh v. Banto this Court observed: (SCC p. 340, paras 29-30) "29. In terms of Article 65 the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendant's possession becomes adverse. (See Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak v. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak.)

30. 'Animus possidendi' is one of the ingredients of adverse possession. Unless the person possessing the land has a requisite

42 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

animus the period for prescription does not commence. As in the instant case, the appellant categorically states that his possession is not adverse as that of true owner, the logical corollary is that he did not have the requisite animus. (See Md.

Mohammad Ali v. Jagdish Kalita.)"

63. So far as the judgment in the case of "State of Rajasthan

Vs. Bhawani Singh" 1993 Supp (1) SCC 306 is concerned, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the writ petition was not

maintainable and the parties can agitate the claim before the Civil

Court as the matter was pending before the Civil Court.

64. So far as judgment passed in the case of "K.D. Sharma

Vs. SAIL" reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481 is concerned, the same

is also not applicable and in favour of Respondent No.3 on the

facts and in the circumstances of this case because in the above

case the appellant had moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

who was found to have committed fraud by filing certain

documents and which was not found to be proper and hence the

relief was denied to the party by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

In the above case, the appellant had challenged the award

of Tender in favour of Private Respondent No.2 by the Steel

Authority of India and certain documents were filed before the

43 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

High Court of Orissa by the appellant which was found to be in

proper and the allegations levelled against the same by the

appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not found

correct. Thus, the above judgment is not applicable on the facts

and the circumstances of this case.

65. So far as the judgment passed in the case of "Dwarka

Prasad Agarwal Vs. Ramesh Chandra" reported in (2003) 6

SCC 220 is concerned, the same is also not applicable on the facts

and in the circumstances of this case and also in favour of

Respondent No. 3.

Because in the above case, the execution of lease deed and

purported Deed of family settlement was in question with regard

to publication of news paper in Bhopal and other part of the

Country and it was disputed question of fact and as such the

Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the parties to move before

the Civil Court and the High Court had rejected the relief to the

plaintiff but granted similar relief in favour of the First Respondent

and the matter was remitted to the Collector/the High Court for a

fresh decision.

66. So far as judgment passed in the case of "State of

Rajasthan Vs. Bhawani Singh And Others" reported in 1993

Supp (1) SCC 306 is concerned the same is not applicable in the

44 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

case of Respondent No.3.

In the above case also, it was question of vesting of land

of one Bhawani Singh and the State Official had rejected the claim

of the purchasers. It was a question of devolving 134 bighas and 4

biswas of land in the State of Jaipur by virtue of Jaipur Land

Acquisition Act but the said land was sold by Bhawani Singh in

favour of Mrs. Mani Devi Ojha and as such the Hon'ble Supreme

Court had directed that question of title cannot be adjudicated in a

writ petition and the matter was remanded to the appropriate

authority to determine the said title by observing that any person

aggrieved by such decision shall be free to establish his claims and

contention in an appropriate Court of law or forum by setting aside

the order of Rajasthan High Court which has allowed the writ

petition in favour of Bhawani Singh and Mrs. Mani Devi Ojha.

67. From perusal of Section 126 of the Transfer of Property

Act, it is evident that Gift Deed can be suspended or revoked only

on the happening of any specified event. However, from the

recitals of the Gift Deed dated 21.02.1986, it is evident that there

was no reference of consideration amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Four

Lakhs) and there was no reference of paying the said consideration

amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Four Lakhs) within 2 (Two) years rather

it is evident that the property of the Gift Deed was shown as

45 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) only. Apart from this it is evident from

the Gift Deed that it was disputed on account of love and affection

and being pleased with the services of eldest daughter and her

nephew of the Donor Kedar Nath Sahu and not by way of Sale

Deed.

68. Thus, it is clear that the Revocation Deed dated

11.07.1990 (Annexure-4) cancelled by Kedar Nath Sahu is

completely without jurisdiction and null and void.

69. It is further evident that after Registering the Gift Deed

dated 21.02.1986 (Annexure-1), right, title, interest and possession

was handed over by the Donor Kedar Nath Sahu to the Donee

(i.e. Roshan Lal @ Samarendra Kumar) who was the Vendor of the

petitioner.

70. It is further evident that the Donor Kedar Nath Sahu had

no right, title, interest and possession over the property in question

after 21.02.1986 as it was already passed to Samarendra Kumar @

Roshan Lal son of Shri Jyotindra Nath Ganju @ Jogendra Nath

and thus, the Cancellation Deed dated 11.07.1990 (Annexure-4) is

completely illegal and not sustainable in law and void document as

the Cancellor (i.e. Kedar Nath Sahu who was the Donor of Gift

Deed dated 21.02.1986) had remained with no right, title, interest

and possession over the Gifted Property executed vide Deed of

46 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

Gift dated 21.02.1986 in favour of Roshan Lal (i.e. Vendor of the

petitioner). Consequentially, the Subsequent Sale Deed

dated 24.06.1992 (Annexure-5) executed by the seller Kedar Nath

Sahu in favour of his own son Manoj Kumar Gupta is also a void

document and cannot confer any right, title, interest and

possession to said Manoj Kumar Gupta as Kedar Nath Sahu had

no right, title and possession over the same. So far the Writ

Petition is concerned, it is evident that the petitioner has purchased

the property in the year 2020 on 11.06.2020 from the Vendor

Samarendra Kumar @ Roshan Lal who was the Donee of the Gift

Deed dated 21.02.1986 and the petitioner has no knowledge.

71. In this case, the Writ Petitioner learnt for the first time in

the year 2022 regarding the Sale Deed dated 24.06.1992

(Annexure-5) executed by Kedar Nath Sahu (Donor) in favour of

Manoj Kumar Gupta and, thereafter, they were on litigating terms

before the Revenue Courts i.e. Court of the D.C.L.R, Ranchi and

the D.C., Ranchi and thus, there cannot be a limitation in such

circumstances.

It is also well settled that there is no time limit for filing

the Writ Petition and considering the fact that even Roshan Lal i.e.

Vendor of the Writ Petitioner was kept in dark by Donor Kedar

Nath Sahu and as such there cannot be any latches on part of the

47 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

petitioner from moving the Writ Petition after 33 (Thirty Three)

years because the Writ Petitioner has himself purchased the

property in the year 2020.

72. Thus, it is evident that initially one Kedar Nath Sahu, who

was father of late Manoj Kumar Gupta (i.e. father of the

Respondent No.3), had executed Registered Gift deed dated

21.02.1986 (i.e. Annexure-1) in favour of Roshan Lal, Son of

Jogendra Nath, who resident of Sheikhpura, Patna, P.S. Phulwari,

District Patna in respect of lands of part of Holding No.32 (Old)

and 46 (New) R.S. Plot No. 556 in Khatian No.65, Khewat No. 2

(Two) situated in Village Gonda Hatma, Thana No. 200, P.S.

Ranchi Sadar, Pargana Khukhara in the District of Ranchi and

Ward No.1 (one) of Ranchi Municipal Corporation measuring 10

(Ten) katha land with the directions shown in the Gift. The said

property devolved upon late Kedar Nath Sahu by virtue of

compromise decree dated 22.11.1965 in Title Partition Suit No.

122 of 1965 and thereby the properties mentioned in Schedule 'C'

of the compromise decree (i.e. subject matter of this Writ Petition)

fell into share of Kedar Nath Sahu. It has been stated that

Kedar Nath Sahu had two (02) sons and four (04) daughters and

the eldest daughters Smt. Indira Kashyap was married in the

family of Sri Jognendra Nath and she has got two daughters only

48 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

of her own. It is also averred that the Donor (i.e. late Kedar Nath

Sahu) being extremely happy with the services of his daughter

Indira Kashyap and her nephew, Roshan Lal (i.e. Vendor of the

Petitioner) for whom he has great love and affection, he expressed

his desire to make a Gift of the property holding described in

Para-5 (Five) of the document to the Donee (i.e. Roshan Lal) who

showed his willingness to accept the same.

It was clearly mentioned in Para-1 to Para-8 alongwith

with the Schedule of the said Gift Deed dated 21.02.1986 that the

Donor (i.e. late Kedar Nath Sahu), in consideration of the natural

love and affection or the Donee (i.e. Roshan Lal and being his

close relative), the Donor Kedar Nath Sahu with the consent of all

the members of his family granted, transferred, conveyed, gave

and assured by way of Gift unto and to the use of the Donee freely

and voluntarily gifted the said property for his sole use and

benefit, absolutely and unconditionally for ever and delivered

possession of the same. Thereafter, the Donee accepted the Gift

and had taken possession of the same and the Donee got all the

right, title and interest in the property gifted to and accepted by

him and all the right, title and interest vested in the Donee of the

Gifted property, absolutely and unconditionally. It was assured that

the Donor had not entered into an agreement with any party to sell

49 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

prior to execution of the Deed of Gift and yet also not taken any

loan and the property is not effected by any notice for acquisition

from the Government or local body and the Donor i.e. Kedar Nath

Sahu undertook to take all actions and to execute all the

documents required to be done or executed for fully assuring right,

title and interest of the Donee (i.e. Roshan Lal) to the property

hereby transferred by way of Gift. The details of property has

again mentioned in Schedule of the Registered Deed of Gift

dated 21.02.1986. Thus, the recitals of the Registered Gift Deed

dated 21.02.1986 makes it evidently clear that right, title and

interest and also the possession has passed upon the Donee

(i.e. Roshan Lal) by the Donor (i.e. Late Kedar Nath Sahu) on

21.02.1986 itself. Thus the Donor (Late Kedar Nath Sahu) had lost

his right, title, interest and also the possession.

73. However surprisingly vide Deed of Cancellation dated

11.07.1990 (Annexure-4) late Kedar Nath Sahu (described

himself) as the canceller of the first part and Shri Roshan Lal by

describing his as canceller of the other part got cancelled the

Registered Deed of Gift dated 21.02.1986 (Annexure-1) by

terming it as "alleged Deed of Gift" registered on 21.02.1986 in

the office of District of Registrar and further declared that the

cancellor has not right any title over any portion of the landed

50 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

property because the registration has been effected by false

presentation and fraud and no consideration has passed. This

Cancellation Deed dated 11.07.1990 (i.e. Annexure No.4) is

completely void. Apart from this, it is evident that there was

complete misrepresentation on the part of said Kedar Nath Sahu as

he is canceller of the first part and also the canceller of the second

part. In view of the fact that the deed of Cancellation dated

11.07.1990 (i.e. Annexure-4) was executed unilaterally in the

absence of Roshan Lal @ Samarendra Kumar (i.e. who is the

Vendor of the Writ Petitioner) without issuing him any notice or

without informing him or without taking his consent.

74. It is well settled that once the Registered Deed of Gift

dated 21.02.1986 was executed by the Donor i.e. Kedar Nath Sahu

in favour of Donee i.e. Roshan Lal then right, title, interest and

also the possession passed upon the Donee i.e. Roshan Lal and

who came its absolute owner. Therefore, the Cancellation Deed

dated 11.07.1990 (i.e. Annexure-4) is completely void and

ab-initio and has conferred no title and has got no legal basis. It is

further evident that even the Sub-Registrar, in whose presence the

Registered Deed of Gift dated 21.02.1986 (i.e. Annexure-1) was

executed by the Donor (late Kedar Nath Sahu) in favour of Donee

(Shri Roshan Lal).

51 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025

2026:JHHC:2985

75. It is further evident that Cancellation Dead dated

11.07.1990 (Annexure-4) has been executed in utter violation of

provisions of Section 126 of the T.P. Act for the following reasons:

(A) It is evident that no notice was given by the Donor

(late Kedar Nath Sahu) to the Donee (Shri Roshan Lal @

Samarendra Kumar) by regarding Deed of Cancellation.

(B) Even the Sub-Registrar, Ranchi who was not

competent to cancel the Gift Deed dated 21.02.1986

(Annexure-1) by way of Deed of Cancellation dated

11.07.1990 (Annexure-4) against the Donee (Shri Roshan

Lal) because Section 126 of the T.P. Act clearly stipulates that

the revocation of Gift Deed can be done only on happening of

any specified event which does not depend upon the will of

the Donor.

(C) The Donor (late Kedar Nath Sahu) had already lost

his right, title, interest and possession on 21.02.1986 by

virtue of executing Registered Deed of Gift dated 21.02.1986

(Annexure-1) in favour of the Donee (Shri Roshan Lal) and

the Donee (Roshan Lal) has acquired right, title and interest

and had taken over possession of the said property on

21.02.1986 itself (Annexure-1).

(D) Unless Donor and Donee had agreed after happening

52 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

of any specified event. The Deed of Gift Deed could be

suspended or revoked and the Donor could not have taken

any unilateral decision to cancel the Registered Deed of Gift

dated 21.02.1986 by Deed of Cancellation dated 11.07.1990

(Annexure-4).

(E) Even in the recitals of Deed of Cancellation dated

11.07.1990 (Annexure-4) is erroneous and illegal and without

jurisdiction as the Donor (late Kedar Nath Sahu) had done the

said Deed of Cancellation as Deed of Sale on payment of

consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- (Four Lakhs) which was

nowhere mentioned and whispered in the Registered Deed of

Gift dated 21.02.1986 (Annexure-1). The right conferred

upon the Donee (Shri Roshan Lal) or his respective heirs,

legal representatives, successor in interest, executor,

administrator and etc. could not have been withdrawn without

their consent in future.

(F) The payment of money in Registered Gift Deed

could not have been subject matter of money as the Deed of

Gift dated 21.02.1986 (Annexure-1) was executed voluntarily

by the Donor (late Kedar Nath Sahu) in favour of the Donee

(Shri Roshan Lal) without any hindrance and with the

consent of all of his family members and as such the Original

53 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

Donor (late Kedar Nath Sahu) and his successor (late Manoj

Kumar Gupta) and Akshay Kumar (i.e. Respondent No.3) are

estopped from raising the issue of non-payment of

consideration amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Four Lakhs) or Deed

of Gift dated 21.02.1986 (Annexure-1) is to be treated as

Deed of Sale.

(G) From bare perusal of definition of Gift, it is evident

that the definition of Gift relates to transfer of certain existing

movable or immovable property made voluntarily and

without consideration by one person, or the Donor, to

another, called the Donee and accepted by or on behalf of the

Donee. Therefore, the Deed of Gift and particularly the

Registered Deed of Gift has to be executed voluntarily and

without payment of any consideration amount and therefore

the Deed of Cancellation dated 11.07.1990 is completely

illegal, void ab-initio and without jurisdiction and not

sustainable in law.

76. It has been held in the case of "N. Thajudeen Vs. Tamil

Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board" reported in 2024

SCC OnLine SC 3037 at Para-13, 14 and 15 as follows:

"Para-13: It is important to reproduce Section 126 of the Act, which reads as follows:

"126. When gift may be suspended or

54 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

revoked.-

The donor and donee may agree that on the happening of any specified event which does not depend on the will of the donor a gift shall be suspended or revoked; but a gift which the parties agree shall be revocable wholly or in part, at the mere will of the donor, is void wholly or in part, as the case may be.

A gift may also be revoked in any of the cases (save want or failure of consideration) in which, if it were a contract, it might be rescinded.

Save as aforesaid, a gift cannot be revoked. Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the rights of transferees for consideration without notice."

Para-14: Section 126 of the Act is drafted in a peculiar way in the sense that it contains the exceptions to the substantive law first and then the substantive law. The substantive law as is carved out from the simple reading of the aforesaid provision is that a gift cannot be revoked except in the cases mentioned earlier. The said exceptions are three in number; the first part provides that the donor and donee may agree for the suspension or revocation of the gift deed on the happening of any specified event which does not depend on the will of the donor. Secondly, a gift which is revocable wholly or in part with the agreement of

55 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

the parties, at the mere will of the donor is void wholly or in part as the case may be. Thirdly, a gift may be revoked if it were in the nature of a contract which could be rescinded.

Para-15: In simpler words, ordinarily a gift deed cannot be revoked except for the three contingencies mentioned above. The first is where the donor and the donee agree for its revocation on the happening of any specified event. In the gift deed, there is no such indication that the donor and donee have agreed for the revocation of the gift deed for any reason much less on the happening of any specified event. Therefore, the first exception permitting revocation of the gift deed is not attracted in the case at hand. Secondly, a gift deed would be void wholly or in part, if the parties agree that it shall be revocable wholly or in part at the mere will of the donor. In the present case, there is no agreement between the parties for the revocation of the gift deed wholly or in part or at the mere will of the donor. Therefore, the aforesaid condition permitting revocation or holding such a gift deed to be void does not apply. Thirdly, a gift is liable to be revoked in a case where it is in the nature of a contract which could be rescinded. The gift under consideration is not in the form of a contract and the contract, if any, is not liable to be rescinded. Thus, none of the exceptions permitting revocation of the gift deed

56 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

stands attracted in the present case. Thus, leading to the only conclusion that the gift deed, which was validly made, could not have been revoked in any manner. Accordingly, revocation deed dated 17.08.1987 is void ab initio and is of no consequence which has to be ignored."

77. It has been held in the case of "Prem Singh & Ors. Vs.

Birbal & Ors" reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353 at para- 13 to 16 as

follows:-

"Para-13: Article 59 of the Limitation Act applies specially when a relief is claimed on the ground of fraud or mistake. It only encompasses within its fold fraudulent transactions which are voidable transactions.

Para-14: A suit for cancellation of instrument is based on the provisions of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, which reads as under:

"31. When cancellation may be ordered.--(1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.

(2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, the court shall

57 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation."

Para-15: Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 thus, refers to both void and voidable document. It provides for a discretionary relief.

Para-16: When a document is valid, no question arises of its cancellation. When a document is void ab initio, a decree for setting aside the same would not be necessary as the same is non-est in the eye of law, as it would be a nullity.

Para-17: Once, however, a suit is filed by a plaintiff for cancellation of a transaction, it would be governed by Article 59. Even if Article 59 is not attracted, the residuary Article would be."

Thus it has been held in the above case that when a

document is valid, no question arises of its cancellation. When a

document is void ab initio, a decree for setting aside the same

would not be necessary as the same is non-est in the eye of law, as

it would be a nullity.

78. It has been held by Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court

in the case of "Chelluboyina. Nagaraju Vs. Molleti Ramudu @

58 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

Vijayalakshmi" reported in 2022 Live Law (AP) 66 at para-20

and 21 as follows:

"Para-20: In Kolli Rajesh Chowdary Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh3, while dealing with the aspect whether registration of deed of cancellation unilaterally is violative of principles of natural justice and also contrary to the Rule 26(i)(k)(i), Hon'ble Court held that deed of cancellation/deed of revocation is declared as 2019(3)ALD229 null and void and it is of no effect. There cannot be a unilateral cancellation of registered document and that a cancellation deed cancelling a registered document can be registered only after the same is cancelled by a competent Civil Court, after notice to the parties concerned, and that in the absence of any declaration by a competent Court or notice to parties, the execution of deed of cancellation as well as its registration are wholly void and nonest.

Para-21: In view of ratio laid down in the above decision, revocation deed executed by late Somalamma after 7½ years of execution of gift settlement deed is not valid in the eye of law. As a consequence, the appellant will not get better title under Ex.B-1 sale deed. The latin maxim nemo dat quad non habit squarely apply to the facts of the case, means No person can convey better title than what he has. Vendor of the appellant upon execution of Ex A-1 lost title to the property, except enjoyment

59 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

during her lifetime. Cancellation of document is not valid and it being non-est, it will not inure to the benefit of appellant/ defendant."

79. It has been held in the case of "Daulat Singh (Dead)

Through Legal Representatives Vs. State of Rajasthan And

Ors." reported in (2021) 3 SCC 459 at para- 18 to 27 as follows:-

"Para-18: Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that:

"122. "Gift" defined.--"Gift" is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. Acceptance when to be made.--Such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving.

If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void."

Para-19: Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that:

"123. Transfer how effected.--For the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses.

For the purpose of making a gift of movable property, the transfer may be effected either by a registered instrument signed as aforesaid or by

60 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

delivery.

Such delivery may be made in the same way as goods sold may be delivered."

Para-20: Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that for a gift to be valid, it must be gratuitous in nature and must be made voluntarily.

The said giving away implies a complete dispossession of the ownership in the property by the donor. Acceptance of a gift by the donee can be done anytime during the lifetime of the donor.

Para-21: Section 123 provides that for a gift of immovable property to be valid, the transfer must be effectuated by means of a registered instrument bearing the signature of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses.

Para-22: A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Naramadaben Maganlal Thakker v. Pranjivandas Maganlal Thakker had held that : (SCC p. 258, paras 6-7) "6. Acceptance by or on behalf of the donee must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving.

7. It would thus be clear that the execution of a registered gift deed, acceptance of the gift and delivery" of the property together make the gift complete. Thereafter, the donor is divested of his

61 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

title and the donee becomes the absolute owner of the property." (emphasis supplied) Para-23: The Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment upheld the findings of the Board of Revenue wherein it held that there was no valid acceptance by the donee. The Additional District Collector held that there was no semblance of acceptance in the gift deed. On appeal, the Board of Revenue held that, "it is irrelevant that after the gift the land remained in possession of the donee or that he got it mutated in his name". The Division Bench of the High Court, relying on the aforesaid observation, stated that there was no valid acceptance as it seems like the donee was unaware about the gift deed itself.

Para-24: At the outset, it ought to be noted that Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 neither defines acceptance, nor does it prescribe any particular mode for accepting the gift. The word "acceptance" is defined as "is the receipt of a thing offered by another with an intention to retain it, as acceptance of a gift". (See Ramanatha P. Aiyar : The Law Lexicon, 2nd Edn., p. 19.)

Para-25: The aforesaid fact can be ascertained from the surrounding circumstances such as taking into possession the property by the donee or by being in the possession of the gift deed itself. The only

62 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

requirement stipulated here is that, the acceptance of the gift must be effectuated within the lifetime of the donor itself.

Para-26: Hence, being an act of receiving willingly, acceptance can be inferred by the implied conduct of the donee. The aforesaid position has been reiterated by this Court in Asokan v. Lakshmikutty [Asokan v. Lakshmikutty : (SCC pp. 215-16, para 14) "14. Gifts do not contemplate payment of any consideration or compensation. It is, however, beyond any doubt or dispute that in order to constitute a valid gift acceptance thereof is essential. We must, however, notice that the Transfer of Property Act does not prescribe any particular mode of acceptance. It is the circumstances attending to the transaction which may be relevant for determining the question.

There may be various means to prove acceptance of a gift. The document may be handed over to a donee, which in a given situation may also amount to a valid acceptance. The fact that possession had been given to the donee also raises a presumption of acceptance." (emphasis supplied)

Para-27: In the present case, the gift deed itself contained certain recitals as mentioned below:

"... Out of the aforesaid land in all the khasras

63 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

1/2 part means 50 per cent I am giving you in gift being my younger son with my pleasure. My elder son Shri Babu Singh has no objection to this gift ... From today you are the owner of the half of the land gifted to you and you will have possession hereafter. You have the complete right over the aforesaid land for cultivation from today onward. Now you get the gifted land mutated in your name... These lands have not been sold or under will or under the gift earlier. Further I state that the aforesaid land is free from any debt liability ... The registration of the aforesaid gift has been done by me in my sound physical and mental health with consent without any undue coercion and pressure from anyone. I have gifted the aforesaid land with my sweet will and wish...."

These recitals clearly indicate that donor intended to part with ownership and possession immediately after the execution of the gift deed."

80. From perusal of the Registered Deed of Gift dated

21.02.1986 (Annexure-1) it is evident the Registered Deed of Gift

dated 21.02.1986 was executed voluntarily and without

consideration and in the light of Section 126 of T.P. Act and also in

view of the fact that the Original Donor late Kedar Nath Sahu was

pleased with his daughter Mrs. Indira Kashyap and his nephew

64 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

Roshan Lal on account of their services served to him and hence

by way of affection he had executed the Registered Deed of Gift

dated 21.02.1986 (i.e. Annexure-1).

81. In view of discussion made above, it is evidently clear that

the Donor late Kedar Nath Sahu, after executing the Gift Deed

dated 21.02.1986 (Annexure-1) in favour of the Donee Roshan lal

@ Samarendra Kumar dated 21.02.1986 (Annexure-1), had lost

his right, title, interest and possession as the right, title interest and

possession devolved upon and passes to the Roshan Lal @

Samarendra Kumar and as such the unilateral Cancellation Deed

dated 11.07.1990 (Annexure-4) is a void and non-est document

and cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of

executing Subsequent Sale Deed dated 24.06.1992 (Annexure-5)

in favour of father of Respondent No.3.

82. Thus, in view of the above, the Cancellation Deed

No. 7849 dated 11.07.1990 (Annexure-4) unilaterally presented

and executed by late Kedar Nath Sahu against Sri Roshan Lal

(i.e. Vendor of the Petitioner) in the presence of then Respondent

No.2 (Sub-Registrar, Ranchi) is declared null and void in the

interest of justice as the Respondent No.2 was not having

jurisdiction to cancel the Registered Gift Deed No. 2159

dated 21.02.1986 (Annexure-1) and consequently the Sale Deed

65 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025 2026:JHHC:2985

No. 6683 dated 24.06.1992 (Annexure-5) executed by late Kedar

Nath Sahu in favour of late Manoj Kumar Gupta (i.e. father of the

Respondent No.3) is also declared null and void.

83. Thus, this Writ Petition is allowed with the observations

mentioned above.

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated: 07.01.2026 RKM/ AFR Uploaded 05.02.2026

66 W.P.(C) No.724 of 2025