Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Sachidanand Deo @ Pratap Deo - Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Singh – Respondent
C.M.P. No.1244 of 2023
Decided on : 19-04-2024
[INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION] - [DELETION OF PARTY] - [ORDER 1 RULE 10 CPC, ARTICLE 227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA] - [The court discussed the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, which allows for the addition or deletion of parties in a suit to ensure complete adjudication. The court emphasized that the trial court's decision to allow the intervention was based on the necessity of including parties with a claim to the property in question, thereby ensuring that all relevant interests were represented. The interpretation of Article 227 was also highlighted, noting that the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting manifest errors or jurisdictional issues, rather than re-evaluating factual determinations made by lower courts.]
Fact of the Case:
The interlocutory application was filed to delete the name of a deceased party from the cause title during the pendency of a partition suit. The case involved disputes over land ownership and partition among descendants of two brothers, Sukh Lal Deo and Maheshwar Deo. The trial court had allowed an intervention petition from parties claiming rights based on a sale deed, which was contested by the original parties in the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's decision to allow the intervention was justified as it was necessary for the complete adjudication of the partition suit. The court noted that the intervenors had a legitimate claim to the property based on a sale deed, and their inclusion was essential to resolve all interests in the property.
Issues: The primary issues included whether the trial court erred in allowing the intervention petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC and whether the claims of the intervenors were valid in the context of the partition suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction in allowing the intervention, as the presence of the intervenors was necessary for a complete and effective adjudication of the partition suit. The court reiterated that the High Court's supervisory powers under Article 227 are limited to correcting manifest errors and do not extend to re-evaluating factual findings.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, affirming the trial court's order allowing the intervention and deletion of the deceased party from the cause title.
JUDGMENT :
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
I.A. No.688 of 2024
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for deletion of the name of Proforma Opp. Party No.15, namely, Rajpati Devi from the cause title, who had died on 27.12.2023 during pendency of the instant petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Considering the ground taken in the instant interlocutory application, this Court is of the view that the prayer for deleting the name of the deceased, Proforma Opp. Party No.15 from the cause title, requires to be allowed.
4. Accordingly, the prayer made in the instant interlocutory application, is allowed
5. The Proforma Opp. Party No.15 is hereby deleted from the array of the opposite parties.
6. In view thereof, I.A. No.688 of 2024 stands allowed.
7. Office is directed to carry out necessary deletion in the array of opposite party.
C.M.P. No.1244 of 2023
8. It has been submitted by Ms. Trishna Sagar, learned counsel that today Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of Proforma Respondent nos.16 to 19 and 21 to 23.
9. The instant civil misc. petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed on behalf of the applicant on whose behalf the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 was filed which has been allowed by the learned trial Court, is under challenge in this petition.
10. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the instant petition, required to be referred which reads as under:-
11. It is the case of the petitioner that the lands of Khata No. 117 of Mouza-Punai, Thana No.-110, Khewat No.-2/11 stood recorded in the survey Khatiyan as Bakast where the landlords namely Sukhhlal Deo and Maheshwar Deo had equal share. Khata No. 123 of Mouza Punai stood recorded as Gairmajurwa Khas in the survey Khatiyan where the landlords namely, Sukhhlal Deo and Maheshwar Deo had equal share. Khata No. 121 was recorded in the name of Barhan S/o Laxman Mahra who died issueless and as such, Khata No. 121 went back to the landlords, namely, Sukhhlal Deo and Maheshwar Deo.
12. As per the statement made in the Plaint that the Plaintiff has himself stated that the lands held by the two brothers, namely, Sukh Lal Deo and Mahesh Deo, were partitioned between them and each one was allotted half of the entire properties. The Partition Suit, thus, was only confined to the share which was allotted to Sukh Lal Deo and the partition was claimed essentially against the other descendants of Sukh Lal Deo. The Plaintiff did not make any claim against the descendants of Maheshwar Deo as according to the Plaintiff himself there was a partition between Sukh Lal Deo and Maheshwar Deo and therefore, no relief has been claimed as against the legal heirs of Maheshwar Deo. Although, Plot No. 1570, within Khata No. 117 had total area of 67 decimals Sukhlal Deo and Maheshwar Deo were entitled to only 33.5 decimals of each land, being 50 percent of 67 decimals of land in Plot No. 1570, within Khata No. 117, Mouza Punai, Thana No. 110, District-Hazaribagh. Bhavnath Deo and Ramkeshwar Deo settled the said 50 percent of the properties/Plots in the year 1938 which are there in Khata No. 117, Mouza Punai, Thana No. -110 Punai, District-Hazaribagh and in favour of their wives, namely, Kismati Devi and Alakhraj Devi which included 33.5 decimals of land in Plot No. 1570. Thereafter, the name of the said Settlees, namely, Kismati Devi and Alakhraj Devi were entered in the revenue records before the landlord and after vesting, in the revenue records of the State.
13. The fact of partition between the branch of Sukhlal Deo and Maheshwar Deo was absolutely final. Maheshwar Deo settled 50 percent of land in favour of daughter-in-law Rajpati Devi which is 6.72 x1/2 acres. However, Ramesh Singh, Umesh Singh, Ravindra Singh S/o Late Awadh Singh claimed/filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC claiming their right on the basis of Sale Deed dated 10.9.1957 executed by one Laxman Jolha. However, from
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 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 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.
Jurisdiction of Court - Only wrong decision may not be a ground for exercise of jurisdiction under this article unless wrong is referable to grave dereliction of duty, flagrant abuse of power by subo....
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....
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 High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to ensuring subordinate courts function within their legal authority and does not permit the re-appreciation....
The court upheld the discretion of the learned ADJ in granting notice rather than ex-parte relief, affirming that orders under Order XXXIX are discretionary and not subject to interference unless cle....
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
