Disposed

Phuljhari Kuer And Ors. v. Surajdeo Singh And Ors.

Jharkhand HC20 Jul 2022SA/70/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment consists of two interim orders. The first granted an application to condone delay and substitute the legal representatives of a deceased respondent No.1. The second disposed of a second appeal via a compromise agreement dated 18.10.2021 filed jointly by both sides.

What did the court decide?

1. Substitution of legal representatives allowed. 2. Second appeal disposed of via compromise agreement dated 18.10.2021; decree drawn accordingly.

Phuljhari Kuer And Ors. Vs Surajdeo Singh And Ors. — Specific Performance | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

S.A No.70 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

S.A. No.70 of 2010

¶4

Phuljhari Kuer W/o Late Radha Tiwari 2. Teju Tiwari @ Ram Krishna Tiwari 3. Sri Bishundeo Tiwari 4. Sri Birendra Tiwari 5. Sri Surendra Tiwari (All sons of Late Radha Tiwari) 6. Arvind Tiwari 7. Mamta Devi, D/o Late Jairam Tiwari 8. Lalsa Kuer, W/o Late Jairam Tiwari 9. Shanti Devi 10. Lalati Devi @ Lalti Devi 11. Malti Devi (All daughters of Late Radha Tiwari) 12. Kalwati Devi @ Kalawati Devi, D/o Radha Tiwari (All residents of Village –Shildag, P.O. & P.S. –Chhatarpur, Dist – Palamau.)

¶5

.... .... …. Appellants Versus 1. Surajdeo Singh, 2. Gaya Singh (All son of Madhu Singh, resident of Village –Okhraha, Tola – Bairahi, P.O. & P.S. –Chhatarpur, District –Palamau) 3(i) Ram Pati Kuer, W/o Late Ram Swarath Singh 3(ii) Bachhan Singh, S/o Late Ram Swarath Singh 3(iii) Sanjay Singh, S/o Late Ram Swarath Singh 3(iv) Dhananjay Singh, S/o Late Ram Swarath Singh All resident of Village Okhraha, Tola Bairah, P.O. & P.S. – Chhatarpur, District –Palamau 3(v) Shankutala Devi, D/o Late Ram Swarath Singh, resident of village –Sahi, P.O. & P.S. –Chhatarpur, District –Palamau 3(vi) Lalti Devi, D/o –Late Ram Swarath Singh, resident of Village –Mahugaon, P.O. & P.S. –Vishrampur, District –Palamau 3(vii) Malti Devi, D/o Late Ram Swarath Singh, resident of Village –Tulbula, P.O. & P.S. –Vishrampur, District –Palamau 3(viii) Chinta Devi, D/o –Late Ram Swarath Singh, resident of Village –Bishunia, P.O. & P.S. –Dhurki, District –Garhwa. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau at Daltonganj 5. The Survey and Settlement Officer, Palamau, at P.O. & P.S. – Daltonganj, District –Palamau 6. Ajit Tiwari, son of Late Jairam Tiwari, Resident of Village – Shildag, P.O. & P.S. –Chhatarpur, District –Palamau

¶6

Usha Devi, W/o Jag Narayan Pandey and Daughter of Late

¶7

¶8

S.A No.70 of 2010

¶9

Jairam Tiwari, Resident of Village –Bhojpur Dumraon, P.O. – Purana Bhojpur, P.S. –Dumraon, Dist –Buxar. 8. Anju Devi, W/o –Rakesh Kumar and Daughter of Late Jairam Tiwari, Resident of Village –Bishunpur, P.O. & P.S. –Bishunpur, District -Giridih

¶10

.... .... .... Respondents

¶11

------

¶12

For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad, Advocate

¶13

P R E S E N T

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶15

By the Court :-

¶16

I.A. No.6241 of 2022

¶17

Heard the parties.

¶18

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.1- Surajdeo Singh that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to substitute the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.1- Surajdeo Singh who died on 24.07.2021 leaving behind his only three legal representatives whose names, parentage and addresses have been mentioned in paragraph no.4 of the instant interlocutory application. It is then submitted that the deceased respondent no.1 - Surajdeo Singh was looking after the case and the legal representatives of the said deceased respondent no.1 were not aware about the proceedings of the second appeal, hence they could not take steps immediately regarding substitution of the legal representatives of the said deceased respondent no.1. It is then submitted that unless the delay is condoned and the abatement if any, is set aside and the prayer to substitute the

¶19

¶20

S.A No.70 of 2010

¶21

only three legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.1 is allowed, the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.1 will be highly prejudiced.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the petition for substitution is condoned and the abatement, if any, is set aside and the prayer to substitute the only three legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.1 whose names, parentage and addresses have been mentioned in paragraph no.4 of the instant interlocutory application as respondent nos. 1 (a) and 1 (c) is allowed.

¶23

Registry is directed to incorporate the names, parentage and addresses of the said only three legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.1 as respondent nos. 1 (a) and 1 (c) in the cause title of the appeal memo with red ink and the word ‘Dead’ be mentioned in the cause title of the appeal memo against the name of deceased respondent no.1 - Surajdeo Singh.

¶24

Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad undertakes to file power on behalf of the respondent nos. 1(a) to 1(c).

¶25

This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.

¶26

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶27

I.A. No.6171 of 2022

¶28

Heard the parties.

¶29

The learned counsel for the appellants and the learned

¶30

¶31

S.A No.70 of 2010

¶32

counsel for the respondents submits that this interlocutory application has been filed jointly by the appellants and the respondents with a prayer to dispose of the instant second appeal in terms of a joint compromise agreement dated 18.10.2021, which has been annexed as annexure-1 to the instant interlocutory application, executed outside the court with regard to the dispute arising out of the instant second appeal and the same may be formed as part of the decree. It is next jointly submitted by both the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents that good sense has prevailed between the appellants and the respondents. This interlocutory application has been signed by all the parties and it has been stated on Oath by Surendra Nath Tiwari and Bharat Singh that they are respectively the respondent no.5 and appellant no.1 respectively in the instant second appeal and the statements made in paragraph nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 of the instant interlocutory application are true to their information and derived from relevant records of this appeal. Hence, it is submitted that this appeal be disposed of and a compromise decree in terms of the agreement dated 18.10.2021 be drawn.

¶33

Under such circumstances, it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the dispute between the parties is wholly adjusted by a lawful agreement, the copy of which has been annexed as annexure-1 of this interlocutory application.

¶34

Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of on compromise in terms of the said agreement dated 18.10.2021, the copy of which has

¶35

¶36

S.A No.70 of 2010

¶37

been annexed as annexure-1 of the instant interlocutory application. The said agreement dated 18.10.2021 be treated as part of the decree.

¶38

Registry is directed to draw a decree as per the agreement dated 18.10.2021 and the said agreement be treated as part of this order.

¶39

Accordingly, this second appeal is disposed of in terms of the said compromise agreement dated 18.10.2021 entered into between the parties and decree be drawn up accordingly.

¶40

This second appeal is disposed of accordingly and consequently, this interlocutory application. Other pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also disposed of being infructuous.

¶41

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶42

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated 20^th July, 2022 Sonu-Gunjan/- A.F.R .

¶43

Phuljhari Kuer And Ors. v. Surajdeo Singh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phuljhari Kuer And Ors. v. Surajdeo Singh 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

Smt.Keshiya Devi Vs Sadhu Mahto And Ors.

Balgobind Bhagat Vs Smt.Batas Devi And Ors.

Bal Mohan Orain And Ors. Vs Bal Mohan Oraon And Ors.

Khaderan Ram Vs Chandradeo Prajapati And Ors.

Naresh Kumar Murmu and Anr. Vs Ghanshayam Agarwal And Anr.

Most. Lalita Devi And Ors. Vs Smt Rana Dutta And Ors.