Disposed

Hemant Lal Hansda v. Paku Murmu

Jharkhand HC24 Oct 2018WPC/5362/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the substitution of a legal heir without an enquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC. The court held that since the deceased was represented by surviving heirs, no interference was warranted, but substitution alone does not confer partition rights. The underlying suit was stayed previously; the writ was disposed of directing the trial court to proceed without adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Trial court directed to proceed without adjournments. No costs imposed.

Hemant Lal Hansda Vs Paku Murmu — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No.5362 of 2012

¶4

Hemant Lal Hansda, son of Late Sagar Hansda, by CasteSanthal, by Profession-Cultivator, resident of Village-Bagdumi, P.O-Nayadih, P.S-Masalia, Sub Division & District-Dumka

¶5

…........Defendant No.2/ Petitioner

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Paku Murmu, widow of Late Dhubuj Hembrom

¶8

Kalindi Hembrom, son of Late Dhubuj Hembrom

¶9

Sagendra Hembrom, son of Late Dhubuj Hembrom

¶10

Soban Hembrom, son of Late Dhubuj Hembrom Sl. No.1 to 4 all residents of Village-Bagdumi No.14, P.O-Nayadih, P.S-Masalia, Sub Division & District-Dumka

¶11

…......Plaintiffs/Respondents

¶12

Baburam Murmu, described as son of Bora Murmu, resident of Village-Sugapahari, P.S-Masalia, District-Dumka

¶13

…........ Respondents

¶14

------

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶16

-----

¶17

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Adv. For the Resp. Nos.1 to 4: Mr. D.C. Mishra, Adv. For the Resp. No.5 : Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv.

¶18

06/24.10.2018 The petitioner, who is the defendant no.2 in Title Suit No.56 of 2006, is aggrieved of order dated 04.08.2012 by which the defendant no.1 namely, Maklu Hembrom has been substituted through Baburam Murmu, son of Boro Murmu and Ashutosh Hansda, son of Hemant Lal Hansda.

¶19

Plea urged on behalf of the petitioner is that before her death the defendant no.1-Maklu Hembrom has deposed that she has one son namely, Ashutosh Hansda and therefore without causing an enquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC Baburam Murmu cannot be substituted as one of the legal heirs of the deceased defendant no.1.

¶20

At the outset it needs to be recorded that from the stand taken by the defendant no.2 in his rejoinder to the application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC it appears that the defendant no.2 admits that late Maklu Hembrom was married thrice. His stand is that her first husband had died and name of her first husband was not disclosed in the

¶21

¶22

plaint. The plaintiffs now assert that Boro Murmu was the first husband of late Maklu Hembrom and from the said wedlock one son namely, Baburam Murmu was born. There is no dispute that Ashutosh Hansda is the son of the defendant no.1 and defendant no.2. Now in the above facts, the dispute sought to be raised by the defendant no.1 appears to be a dispute in contemplation of partition of the suit schedule property, in the event the suit fails. In law, even if a deceased defendant is not represented through all his/her legal heirs and successors, this would not be a defect warranting interference with the order of the substitution, unless one or the other legal heirs/successors of a deceased has a claim at variance with other legal heirs/successors. After all the deceased defendant no.1 is represented through her surviving legal heirs and successors.

¶23

In the above facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 04.08.2012. However, it is clarified that the order of substitution of Baburam Murmu in Title Suit No.56 of 2006 alone would not confer a right upon him to seek partition of the suit schedule property.

¶24

By an order dated 30.01.2013 further proceeding of Title Suit No.56 of 2006 was stayed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. However, both parties have failed to take steps in the matter and in the meanwhile several adjournments were taken. However, I refrain from imposing any cost upon the parties and the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the trial judge to proceed in the matter in accordance with law, without granting any adjournment to any of the parties, but for just excuse.

¶25

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶26

sudhir

Hemant Lal Hansda v. Paku Murmu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Lal Hansda v. Paku Murmu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Nirawati Devi And Anr. Vs Smt Chudawati Devi And Ors.

Khudi Ram Mahato Vs Mukesh Sharma And Anr.

Sajani Devi Vs Smt Chhobia Mahatain And Ors.

Ganeshi Singh And Ors. Vs Mahabir Singh And Ors.

Baidhnath Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented by the Collector Cum Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Daya Nidhi Singh Vs Sri Krishna Mahto And Ors.