Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Sunny Johar - Petitioner
Versus
Bhupendra Pratap Singh and ors. – Respondents
C.M.P. No.719 of 2023
Decided On : 12-01-2024
WILL - Partition Suit and Substitution of Parties - Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Order XXII Rule 1, 3(1) C.P.C., Section 5 of the Limitation Act - The court discussed the implications of a registered but unprobated Will in the context of substitution of parties in a partition suit. It emphasized that the validity of the Will and the rights claimed under it must be adjudicated by a competent court, and that the High Court's supervisory powers under Article 227 are limited to ensuring that lower courts act within their jurisdiction and do not commit gross errors. The court concluded that the order allowing substitution was not erroneous, as it was necessary to resolve the claims of all parties involved.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order allowing the substitution of parties in a partition suit following the death of the sole appellant, Pushpa Lata. The substitution was based on a registered Will that had not been probated, and the petitioner argued that the respondents were not legal heirs and had no rights over the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents' claim to the property was based on the unprobated Will, which was still under challenge in another court. However, it ruled that the issue of their rights could only be determined by a competent court, and thus the substitution was justified to allow for a complete adjudication of the claims.
Issues: Whether the respondents could be substituted as parties in the appeal based on an unprobated Will, and whether the High Court could interfere with the lower court's order under Article 227.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the validity of the Will and the rights claimed under it must be adjudicated by a competent court, and that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting gross errors or jurisdictional issues, not to re-evaluate factual determinations made by lower courts.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court directed the lower court to expedite the appeal process due to the long-standing nature of the partition suit.
JUDGMENT :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Misc. Civil Application No.26 of 2021, arising out Civil Appeal No.22 of 2020 has been challenged whereby the learned court while set aside the order of abetment, has come to the conclusion based upon the registered Will dated 09.08.2017 that the petitioner has a right to step into the shoes of deceased/appellant, as such, the prayer for impleading/substituting Bhupendra Pratap Singh and Akil Ahmad in Civil Appeal no.22 of 2020 after deleting the name of appellant, namely Pushpa Lata has been allowed.
2. The brief fact of the case as per the pleading made in the petition which requires to be enumerated, reads as under:-
3. It is the case of the petitioner that Saroja Rani, since deceased mother of the petitioner and the Proforma Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 filed Partition Suit No. 154 of 1985 against her mother Rani Brij Mani and her sister namely Sneh Lata Goel and Miss Pushpa Lata claiming a decree for partition of 1/4th a decree for Share in the various properties mentioned in Schedule-B and C to the plaint.
4. In the said suit, preliminary decree for partition of 1/4th Share of the plaintiff, Saroja Rani was passed and ultimately final decree dated16.03.1992 was passed by the learned Sub-Judge-V, Ranchi in Partition Suit No. 154/145 of 1985/1990.
5. After passing of the final decree Saroja Rani, who was the sole plaintiff died leaving behind her husband Surendra Singh Johar and one son, namely, Sunny Johar and one daughter Samta J Singh.
6. In the said partition suit Rani Brij Mani, the Defendant No.1 died and as such, her 1/4th Share in the suit property was inherited by the petitioner as well as the Proforma Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4.
7. Sneh Lata Goel, the Respondent No.4 filed petition in the said partition suit for carving out her share in the suit properties and accordingly, final decree was passed on 18.12.2013.
8. It is the further case that the Defendant No.3 Pushpa Lata since deceased filed Civil Appeal No.22 of 2020 and 23 of 2020 before the High Court against the preliminary and final decree passed in the said partition suit and there was inordinate delay of 8946 days in filing the said appeal which is barred by limitation and delay has not been condoned as yet and both the appeals have been transferred to the court of learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in view of the pecuniary jurisdiction.
9. During the pendency of the above appeal, the sole appellant Miss Pushpa Lata died unmarried leaving behind the petitioner and the Proforma Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 as her heirs and legal representatives.
10. In the said appeal Bhupendra Pratap Singh of son Late Yaduvansh Singh and Akil Ahmad son of Late Nizam Khan filed petition under Order XXII Rule 1, 3(1) read with Section 151 C.P.C. for impleading/substituting their names in place of deceased, namely, Pushpa Lata sole appellant on the basis of the registered Will dated 09.08.2017.
11. Pushpa Lata, the deceased sole appellant died on 05.09.2019 and substitution petition has been filed 22.03.2021 along with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing substitution petition.
12. It is the further case that the petitioner and the Proforma Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 filed objection to the said petition stating therein that the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 are not the legal heirs of the deceased sole appellant Pushpa Lata rather they are strangers and the petitioner along with Proforma Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 have filed Case No. 241 of 2020 in the court of Civil Judge, Sr. Div., Varanasi challenging the alleged Will dated 09.08.2017 alleged to have been executed by Pushpa Lata in favour of the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the same has been procured by fraudulent means in order to grab the property belonging to the
The court established that the High Court's supervisory powers under Article 227 do not extend to correcting mere errors of law or fact, and that the rights claimed under an unprobated Will must be a....
The court established that the validity of claims based on an unprobated Will must be determined through judicial proceedings, and that the absence of probate does not automatically invalidate such c....
The court established that under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, parties with a legitimate interest in the subject matter of a suit may be added to ensure complete adjudication, and the High Court's supe....
In partition suits, the principle of transposition allows for the substitution of legal heirs even if some parties have died, provided the title is not in dispute, and a decree passed against decease....
The court established that under Order I Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C., a party can be impleaded if they demonstrate a prima facie interest in the property, and the trial court has the discretion to allow....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the power to allow amendments to the plaint to prevent the inexecutability of a partition decree.
The principle of res judicata does not apply when a previous suit is dismissed on technical grounds, allowing for a new suit to be filed based on a recurring cause of action for partition.
The court may compel the addition of necessary parties to a suit despite the plaintiff's choice, ensuring all interested parties can be adjudicated effectively.
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC should not change the nature of the suit or introduce new causes of action, and must be necessary for the proper adjudication of the case wit....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
