IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
A.K.GOSWAMI, J.
Sri Nitesh Ghosh, Son of Late Narendra Nath Ghosh and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Patiya Devi Agarwal @ Sureka, Wife of Late Prahlad Rai Kyal and Ors. - Respondents
CRP NO. 29 OF 2017
Decided On : 12-12-2017
Constitution of India – Article 227 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 14 and 32 – Rule 1 and 2 – Section 80 – Rejected of Application – Framing Preliminary – Suit filed by plaintiffs numbering 10 defendant No.1 is one Sri Subhkaran Jain noticed earlier defendant present petitioners – Plaintiff are minors and they are sons of Late Sanjay mother of plaintiff said suit recital appears in array of parties in respect of plaintiff – Held, Court to permit suit instituted by or on behalf of a minor to be continued after taking steps to see that next friend of minor is named and brought on record to conduct suit on behalf of minor. Order 32 Rule 2 CPC does not provide that only recourse that can be had by the Court in event of minor not being represented to have plaint taken off the file – If Court thinks fit an alternative order for rectification of error and for continuance of the suit can be made – Except omission of words next friend it is already noted that minors are represented by their natural guardian issued raised by defendant preliminary issue as contemplated – Petition is dismissed.
By this Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are defendant Nos.2 to 9 in Title Suit No.17/2015, question the order dated 06.12.2016 (Annexure-5) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai, in Title Suit No.17/2015, whereby the learned Civil Judge rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order 14 Rule 1 of the CPC for framing preliminary issues.
2. In the suit filed by the plaintiffs, numbering 10, the defendant No.1 is one Sri Subhkaran Jain. As noticed earlier, defendant Nos.2 to 9 are the present petitioners. Plaintiff Nos.9 and 10 are minors and they are sons of Late Sanjay Kyal. The mother of plaintiff Nos.9 and 10 is Smt. Chanchal Devi Agarwal @ Sureka @ Kyal and she is the plaintiff No.8 in the said suit. The following recital appears in the array of parties in respect of plaintiff Nos.9 and 10:
“Plaintiff Nos. 9 and 10 are the minor sons of Late Sanjay Kyal and as such they are represented by their mother Smt. Chanchal Devi Agarwal @ Sureka @ Kyal.”
3. The case projected in the plaint is that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, Late Mirzamal Agarwal alias Sureka alias Kyal was the owner of a plot of land measuring 12 Bigha 4 Katha and 4 Lecha, covered by Dag Nos.972, 973 and 974 in Patta No.793 of Village Kharupetia, Mouza-Kharupetia. Mirzamal Agarwal alias Sureka alias Kyal expired in the year 1968. At the time of death of Mirzamal, he had five sons, namely, Prahlad Rai Kyal, Rupchand Kyal, Bijay Kr. Kyal, Shreeram Kyal and Prem Kr. Kyal. Plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Prahlad Rai Kyal, plaintiff No.2 is Bijay Kr. Agarwal alias Surekha alias Kyal, plaintiff No.3 is Shreeram Agarwal alias Sureka alias Kyal and plaintiff No.4 is Prem Kumar Agarwal alias Sureka alias Kyal. Prahlad Rai Kyal expired on 25.04.1996 leaving behind his wife Smt. Patia Devi Agarwal @ Sureka (plaintiff No.1) and two sons, namely, Sri Rajendra Kr. Sureka and Sri Krishna Kr. Sureka, who are plaintiff Nos.6 and 7, respectively. Rupchand Kyal expired in January, 1996 leaving behind his wife Smt. Sulochana Devi Kyal and two sons, Sanjay Kyal and Bikash Kyal. Sanjay Kyal expired on 24.02.2005 leaving behind his wife Smt. Chanchal Devi Agarwal alias Sureka alias Kyal and two sons, namely, Sanskar Kyal and Vaibhav Kyal, who are plaintiff Nos.8, 9 and 10, respectively. In the year 2014, Smt. Sulochana Devi Kyal, wife of Late Rupchand Kyal also expired. Bikash Agarwal @ Sureka @ Kyal is plaintiff No.5.
4. Out of the aforesaid 12 bigha 4 katha 4 lecha of land, the names of plaintiff Nos.1, 6 and 7 had been mutated in respect of 3 bigha 1 katha 8 lecha of land in the year 1998 as per amicable settlement between the parties and they had sold 2 bigha 1 katha 5 lecha and as such the plaintiffs are owners of 10 bigha 2 katha and 19 lecha of land, as described in Schedule-A to the plaint. Defendant No.1 and the father of plaintiff Nos.2, 3 and 4 were close friends. Defendant No.1 was requested to look after the suit land in absence of the plaintiffs as he had business establishment at Kharupetia. The defendant No.1, however, fraudulently sold 9 bigha 2 katha and 16 lecha of land to defendant Nos.2 to 9. From the news item flashed in the electronic media in the year 2013, the plaintiffs came to learn that their land is the subject-matter of some controversy in regard to delivery of and handing over of possession and, accordingly, the plaintiff No.7 made enquiries and, on his enquiries, he came to know that the defendant No.1, in connivance with the Circle Officer, Dalgaon, as well as the Lat Mandal of the area, mutated land measuring 9 bigha 2 katha 16 lecha vide an order passed by the Circle Officer, Dalgaon, on 27.04.2011 recording the name of the defendant No.1 and, thereafter, the defendant No. 1 sold the entire 9 bigha 2 katha 16 lecha of land. The mutation order reflected that the mutation was done treating the defendant No.1 to be the legal heir o
Amar Nath Dogra Vs. Union of India
Bihari Chowdhary & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.