High CourtsSingle Bench(2022) 07 PAT CK 0076

Rajendra Prasad @ Rajendra Mali And Ors vs Baban Bhagat And Ors

Patna High Court · Decided on 25 July 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Sinha, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 672 Of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 371 words
1.

Heard Mr. Ashutosh Tribapthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the Respondents.

2.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 7.2.2018 passed by the learned Sub Judge-I, Bikramganj, Rohtas, by which, the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioners for their impleadment in the Title Partition Suit No.54/2017 has been rejected.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one Faujdar Mali is the common ancestor and the plaintiffs/respondents are claiming their right on the suit property and seeking partition on the basis of gift deed executed by their mother and grandmother. Faujdar Mali has five sons including one Bangali Mali and the plaintiffs are the descendants of Bangali Mali. Learned counsel further submits that in the Partition Suit, the petitioners have not been made party inasmuch as they are having right, title and interest upon the suit properties being the descendants of other sons of Faujdar Mali. On the aforesaid basis, they filed a petition for their impleadment, but the learned Sub Judge,-I, Bikramganj, Rothas, without deciding the claim of the petitioners on its own merit, has rejected the petition for their impleadment on the technical ground that the petition has been filed by six petitioners whereas only one of them has sworn affidavit.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the petitioners have got no interest in the suit property and they have filed a separate suit for setting aside the gift deed bearing Title Suit No. 324 of 2017.

5.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned court below has not applied his mind on merit of the claim and on the contrary, has dismissed the petition for impleadment on mere technicality.

6.

Accordingly, the order dated 7.2.2018 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Bikramganj, Rohtas, in Title Partition Suit No. 54 of 2017 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned court below to decide and dispose the petition filed by petitioners dated 19.07.2017 on merit.

7.

This application stands allowed with extent indicated above.

8.

There shall be no order as to costs.