Dismissed

Arbind Mandal v. Satish Mandal and Ors.

Jharkhand HC2 Nov 2022SA/56/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Second Appeal challenged the order dismissing an appeal against a decree in a partition suit. The High Court found no substantial question of law as both lower courts held that the appellant lacked title to the property due to invalid sale deeds executed by ancestors without cogent evidence of legal necessity.

What did the court decide?

The Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

Arbind Mandal Vs Satish Mandal and Ors. — Partition | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

S.A. No. 56 of 2015

¶4

Arbind Mandal … … Appellant Versus

¶5

1. Satish Mandal 2. Dijen Mandal 3. Pobia Devi 4. Kuldip Mandal 5. Sanju Mandal 6. Pappu Mandal (Minor) 7. Binod Mandal 8. Dipak Mandal (Minor) 9. Mina Devi 10. Krishna Mandal 11. Bholu Mandal 12. Chanchala Kumari (Minor) 13. Atul Mandal 14. Sujit Mandal 15. Mancho Devi 16. Sitola Bewa 17. Jogen Mandal @ Jogendra Mandal 18. Diwakar Mandal 19. Rita Devi

¶6

Pawitra Mandalain

¶7

Parwati Bewa

¶8

Ashok Choubey 23. Malti Devi … … Respondents ------

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK

¶10

¶11

For the Appellant : Mr. Birendra Burman, Advocate

¶12

¶13

6/ 02.11.2022 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

¶14

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.12.2014 and decree signed on 17.12.2014, passed by learned Addl. District Judge-I, Sahibganj, dismissing the Title (P) Appeal No. 18/2013 and upholding and affirming the judgment dated 26.6.2013 and decree signed on 6.7.2013, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-II, Rajmahal in Partition Suit No. 29 of 2006, whereby suit of plaintiffs has been decreed on contest.

¶15

The defendant no. 3-appellant has preferred this Second Appeal challenging the orders passed by the learned Courts below.

¶16

¶17

The suit was preferred by the plaintiffs-respondents for seeking partition of the suit property and also for declaration of three sale deeds, bearing nos. 4981/1974, 5272/75 and 1759/79 as void ab initio as detailed in Schedule-A and B respectively of the plaint, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court and the same was decreed. The appellate court affirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that both the Courts below erred in law in coming to the finding that a coparcener has no right to sell his undivided share. Learned counsel further submits that both the Courts below have not considered the point raised by the appellant with respect to law of limitation and without discussing it, have decreed the suit. Therefore, the findings arrived at by both the Courts below are bad in law and fit to be set aside.

¶19

Be that as it may, having heard the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the judgements passed by the Courts below, this Court finds that both the Courts below have come to the finding that as per Hindu Joint Mitakshara Family, it is well settled that a coparcener has no right to sell his undivided share in the joint Hindu property and such a sale would not bind upon the other coparceners, that too without the consent of other coparceners unless, alienation is for legal necessity or for payment of antecedent debts. In the present case, no specific and cogent evidence was produced on behalf of the appellant that Sheonath Mandal (father of 1^st party plaintiff) and his two brothers have got any urgent legal necessity for execution of the aforesaid sale deeds. Therefore, both the Courts below have come to the finding that Sheonath Mandal and his two brothers

¶20

¶21

severally and jointly have got no right or authority to execute the sale deeds covering an area more than their shares. Therefore, the sale deeds are found to be void right from the beginning to the end.

¶22

In view of the findings recorded by both the Courts below, it can comfortably be inferred that the defendant no. 3 / appellant has no right, tittle or interest over the suit property as detailed in Schedule-B on the basis of sale deeds, mutation orders, as the same are void ab initio and illegal. Hence, there is no illegality or any infirmity in the orders / judgments passed by the learned Courts below.

¶23

Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself, as it is a case of concurrent finding and no substantial questions of

¶24

law is involved.

¶25

R.Kr.

Arbind Mandal v. Satish Mandal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arbind Mandal v. Satish Mandal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Dipankar Roy Manager Legal Vs Amrit Jain And Ors.

New India Assurance Company Limited Represented Through Its Divisional Office No 1 Vs Roshni Mahakud And Ors.

Kauleshwar Dangi Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Rakhal Mahato Vs Kisto Mahato and Ors.

Shri Nimai Ruj And Ors. Vs Union Of India Through General Manager Eastern Railway

Pankaj Kumar Vs Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Through Its Secretary And Anr.