Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 4581
PATNA HIGH COURT
S. B. Pd. Singh, J
Ajay Mehta – Appellant
Versus
Sidheshwar Singh and Ors – Respondent
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1591 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha
For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, A.C. to S.C., Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Adv., Mr. Rohan Kumar, Adv.
The necessity of a party's intervention in matters involving property title is affirmed where they have a direct interest.
Headnote:The case examined the legality of the order allowing intervention by the respondent, where the petitioner claimed title and possession over specific properties. The Court found that the respondent's presence was essential for proper adjudication, thus allowing the petitioner's request. The main issues included whether the intervention was necessary and if the petitioner had sufficient interest in the property. The Court reasoned that the intervenor had a direct interest due to the land's registration and requisite documents. The final decision concluded with the dismissal of the civil miscellaneous application.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review of intervention order in property suit. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding property title dispute. (Para 4 , 7) |
| 3. court's observation on necessity of parties. (Para 9) |
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER
18 02-12-2025 Present civil miscellaneous has been filed to quash the order dated 28.10.2016 passed by Sub-judge, 1st Gaya in Title Suit No. 168 of 2015 whereby the respondent 1st party has been allowed to intervene as a defendant in the suit.
2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being plaintiff he has filed the Title Suit No. 168 of 2015 against Government of Bihar seeking relief that his title and possession be declared over the suit property and confirmation of possession also be allowed and permanent injunction be granted in favour of him.
4. During course of trial intervener respondent/1st set filed a petition before the trial court asserting therein that the suit property has been recorded in the name of Shri Sheo Jee Maharaj and R.S. Khatiyan has been prepared with respect to suit property in the name of Shri Sheo Jee Maharaj and he is the Sawait of the said temple, so his impleadment is necessary for complete and proper adjudication of the suit and for declaration of title and possession of anybody. After hearing both the parties, the learned court of Sub-judge 1st, Gaya come to this conclusion that:-
"Certain documents has been filed on behalf of the intervener petitioner namely the revisional survey record of right, rent receipts and the gift deed. Apparently the revisional survey record of rights with respect to the lands appertaining to khata number 73 plot number 173 and 174 has been recorded in the name of deity Shankarji Bhagwan. Rents are also being paid on behalf of deity. Rent receipts have been issued in the name of the aforesaid deity. RS Khata no.73 is said to have been carved out of C.S. Khata 43. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the legal propositions as propounded, the petitioner appears to have direct interest in the subject matter of suit. His presence in this suit is essential for complete and effective adjudication of all the questions involved in this suit. In this view of the matter the petition filed on behalf of the intervener petitioner dated 26.02.2016 is allowed. He is directed to be added as a party defendant in this suit. Office clerk is directed to add the petitioner as party defendant in this suit by making necessary amendment in the cause title of the plaint. Put up this record on 21.11.16 for compliance of the order and filing of the written statement by the newly added defendant."
5. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, it clearly transpires that petitioner claims his title and possession over the C.S. Khata No. 43 Plot No. 115 and C.S. Khata No. 3 C.S. Plot No. 307/439, total area 27 decimal + 4 decimal i.e total 31 decimal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that during preparation of R.S. Khatiyan his C.S. Khata has been converted into R.S. Khata No. 73 and C.S. Plot No. 115 has been converted into R.S. Plot No. 173 and 174 and similarly C.S. Khata No. 3 has been converted into R.S. Khata No. 40 and C.S. Plot No. 307/439 has been converted into new R.S. Plot No. 351 and total area remained same. During preparation of R.S. Khatiyan, the C.S. Khata No. 23 which belongs to Shri Sheo Jee Maharaj, has also been converted into R.S. Khata No.
73.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that aforesaid R.S. Khata No. 73 and Plot No. 173 and 174 is corresponding to his C.S. Khata No. 23, Plot No. 307 and 308 standing in the name of Shri Sheo Jee Maharaj.
8. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, it is clear that it is in dispute that new Khata No. 73 is corresponding to which C.S. Khata and R.S. Plot No. 173 and 174 is corresponding to which plot. This matter is subjudice before the trial court.
9. So, after hearing both the parties
