2025 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 4343
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
SMT RAMDULARI DEVI – Appellant
Versus
LAKSHMI NARAAN SAH – Respondent
C.M.P. 537 / 2024
##PAGE1##
2025:JHHC:38701
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 537 of 2024
1. Smt. Ramdulari Devi, W/o Sudeshwar Sah
2. Satya Prakash Sah, S/o Bihari Sao
3. Jai Prakash Sah, S/o Bihari Sao
All R/o Village and P.O. Chapari, P.S. Bhawathpur, Dist.-Garhwa, Jharkhand
..... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. Lakshmi Naraan Sah
2. Gauri Sah
Both S/o Late Ishwar Sah, R/o Vill + P.O. Chapari, P.S. Bhawathpur, Dist.-
Garhwa
3. The Deputy Collector, Garhwa, at Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. & District-Garhwa,
Jharkhand
4. Samjira Devi, W/o Ashok Kumar Gupta
5. Manjira Devi, W/o Dewbansh Kumar Gupta
Both R/o Vill.+ P.O. Belpahari, P.S. Bhawathpur, Dist. Garhwa
… …. Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioners : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Tanu Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Aditya Raman, Advocate
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Awadhesh Pandey, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 4&5 : Ms. Divya Prakash, Advocate
------
Order No. 09 / Dated : 23.12.2025.
1. The instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for setting aside the
order dated 05.02.2024 passed in L.A. Case No. 01/2016, whereby and
whereunder, the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the CPC in L.A.
Case No. 01/2016 has been rejected.
2. Letter of Administration Case No. 01/2016 was filed by opposite party nos.
1 and 2 for grant of letter of administration with respect to the unregistered
deed of WILL executed on 10.05.1989 by Ishwar Sah. The testator died as
per the statement made in para-15 of the application for letter of
administration on 18.04.2006 and the application for letter of administration
has been filed after ten years i.e., in 2016 by the both sons of late Ishwar Sah.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that the
application for letter of administration is riddled with contradictory
averments. In para-5, it is stated that it was late Ishwar Sah who executed the
##PAGE2##2025:JHHC:38701
WILL, but in para-8, it is stated that Motichand Sah died on 18.04.2006 and
further stated in para-15 that the testator died on 18.04.2006. It is not clear if
Ishwar Sah was the testator or Motichand Sah.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the application for
grant of letter of administration has been filed after ten years of the death of
the testator and is, consequently, barred by limitation. It is further submitted
that the purported testator of the WILL is Motichand Sah and the land has
already been transferred by his daughters, namely, Sanjira Devi and Manjira
Devi before filing of letter of administration case by registered sale deed in
favour of Ashok Kumar Gupta and Deobansh Kumar Gupta and the
petitioners have purchased the said land from Ashok Kumar Gupta and
Deobansh Kumar Gupta on 03.10.2020.
5. It is argued by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that they have
substantial interest in the letter of administration case, which is collusive in
nature, and no defence that the suit being barred by limitation is being raised
by the defendants. It is, therefore, pleaded that the petitioners may be
permitted to be made a party so that the matter could be factually heard and
decided. Applicants of the suit has already filed Original Suit No. 89 of 2021
in which the petitioners have been impleaded as parties. Only from the plaint
of the said suit, the petitioners could know about the pendency of the letter
of administration case.
6. It is argued by learned counsel on behalf of the opposite parties that the issue
of title can be decided in the original title suit and the present letter of
administration is only limited to the issue of due execution of the WILL.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, the
matter for consideration is whether the petitioners, who have substantial
interest in the schedule property which they had acquired by way of sale
deed, have any interest to contest the letter of administration case or not?
8. From the submissions advanced and the materials on record, I find mer