SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top