Dismissed¶53

Shakuntala Devi v. Mahabir Prajapati

Jharkhand HC9 Jun 2025C.M.P./201/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 petition, Jharkhand High Court; Order VI Rule 17 CPC amendment of plaint; Sections 151/152 CPC clerical/mis-typed area correction after preliminary decree; Title (Partition) Suit No.65-28/79-86 Jamshedpur; substituted legal heirs of deceased plaintiffs/defendants; preliminary decree 28.07.1986, decree signed 14.08.1986, plots 315/308/309 at 0.34/0.35/0.39 decimals; pleader commissioner report pending final decree; first appeal rejected by Patna High Court 22.05.1998; post-decree amendment by defendants refused; rejection upheld, petition dismissed by Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., 09.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

On a review of the materials on record, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order of 16.09.2021 rejecting the amendment petition, and accordingly dismisses the Article 227 petition. ¶53

Shakuntala Devi Vs Mahabir Prajapati — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:JHHC:14920

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶3

----

¶4

C.M.P. No. 201 of 2022

¶5

----

¶6

1.Shakuntala Devi aged about 65 years wife of late Hemnath Kumhar

¶7

2.Hiralal Kumar aged about 49 years son of late Hemnath Kumhar

¶8

3.Jai Narayan Prajapati, aged about 41 years son of late Hemnath Kumhar

¶9

4.Ranjeet Kumar aged about 33 years son of late Hemnath Kumhar

¶10

Serial No.1 to 4 are resident of Village M.E. School Road, Jugsalai and P.S. Jugsalai, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum

¶11

5.Smt. Ramni Debi aged about 45 years daughter of late Hemnath Kumhar and wife of Ganesh Prajapati resident of Block Road Bundu PO and PS Bundu District Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶12

6.Smt. Tara Devi aged about 38 years daughter of late Hemnath Kumhar and wife of Sekhar Prajapati resident of Village and P.O. Kulanga PS and District Sundarnagar, Orissa.

¶13

7.Basant Prajapati aged about 56 years won of late Dhaneshwari Devi wife of late Jiban Ram

¶14

8.Pappu Prajapati aged about 52 years son of late Dhaneshwari Devi wife of late Jiban Ram

¶15

S.No.7 and 8 are resident of Pulliatu, Kumharpara, Chaibasa, PO and PS Chaibasa District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand

¶16

9.Ram Prajapati aged about 73 years son of late Nageshwari Devi wife of Parmeshwar Ram resident of Baripara PO PS and District Mayurbhanj, Orissa

¶17

10.Shyam Prajapati aged about 63 years son of late Nageshwari Devi wife of Parmeshwar Ram

¶18

11.Budhni Devi aged about 69 years daughter of late Nageshwari Devi wife of Parmeshwar Ram

¶19

Sl.No.10 and 11 are resident of Road No.1, Near Taj Hotel, Musabani, PO and PS Musabani District East Singhbhum 12.Smt. Mala Devi aged about 60 years daughter of late Nageshwari Devi and wife of Deo Nath resident of Village Jhalda, PPO and PS Jhalda, District Purulia, West Bengal …. Plaintiffs/petitioners

¶20

-- Versus --

¶21

1.Mahabir Prajapati son of late Sukhdeo Ram, resident of Jawahar Nagar Road No.15 PO and PS Mango Town Jamshedpur District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand

¶22

2.Raja Prajapati son of late Rukmoni Devi wife of late Kailash Prajapati

¶23

3.Arbind Prajapati son of late Rukmoni Devi wife of late Kailash Prajapati

¶24

4.Pappu Prajapati son of late Rukmoni Devi wife of late Kailash Prajapati

¶25

Serial no.2 to 4 are resident of Village Raja Bandh Kasaidanga, Purulia, PO and PS Purulia, District Purulia West Bengal

¶26

5.Rita Devi daughter of late Rukmini Devi and wife of late Sanjay Prajapati resident of Thana Road Chandil PO and PS Chandil District East Singhbhum

¶27

6.Mahadeo Prajapati Son of late Lakhu Ram resident of Universal Times

¶28

1 C.M.P. No. 201 of 2022

¶29

2025:JHHC:14920

¶30

Rajrangpur Bazar near Cinema Takies, PO and PS Rajrangpur District Mayurbhanj, Orissa

¶31

7.Champa Devi wife of late Sahdeo Prajapati son of late Lakhu Ram

¶32

8.Vijay Prajapati son of late Sahdeo Prajapati

¶33

9.Ajay Prajapati son of late Sahhdeo Prajapati

¶34

10.Sanjay Prajapati son of late Sahdeo Prajapati

¶35

Sl.no.7 to 10 are resident of M.E. School Road, Near New Water Tank, Jugsalai, PO and PS Jugsalai Jamshedpur District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand

¶36

11(i) Rita Devi w/o Banshi Prajapati resident of Dangratoli, near Sujata Cinema Hall PO and PS Lalpur, District Ranchi

¶37

11(ii) Babli Devi, wife of Rajesh Prajapati, resident of Dangratoli, near Sujata Cinema Hall PO and PS Lalpur, District Ranchi

¶38

12(i) Sikandar Prajapati s/o Ram Pravesh Pandit, present resident of Dimna Main Road, Mango No.1, Sanko Sai near Durga Mandir PO and PS Ulidih, Dist. East Singhbhum …… …. Defendants/Respondents.

¶39

¶40

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶41

For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Upendra Nath Mahto, Advocate For the O.P.No.1 :- Mrs Neeharika Mazumdar, Advocate ----

¶42

10 /09.06.2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite party no.1.

¶43

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.09.2021 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Jamshedpur whereby the petition filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC read with Section 151 /152 of the CPC seeking amendment in the plaint of Partition Suit being Title (Partition) Suit No.65-28/79-86 has been rejected by the learned court.

¶44

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the partition suit being Title (Partition) Suit No.65-28/79-86 was instituted by the original plaintiff Sukhdeo Ram against the original defendants namely Lakhu Ram and Meghu Ram for partition of 1/3^rd share of the plaintiff in the suit property described in the Schedule-A of the plaint and for appointment of the pleader commissioner to demarcate the share of the plaintiff and final decree

¶45

2 C.M.P. No. 201 of 2022

¶46

2025:JHHC:14920

¶47

be passed on the demarcation chart of the pleader commissioner. He submits that the property described in the schedule-A is disclosed in paragraph no.6 of the CMP. He Further submits that during the pendency of the suit the original plaintiffs as well as the original defendants died and their respective legal heirs/successors have been substituted in their place. He then submits that original defendant no.1 has filed written statement and additional written statement in the suit and contested the suit. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost against the contesting defendants who are the petitioners herein and ex-party without cost against the remaining defendants by the judgment dated 28.07.1986 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sub Judge, Jamshedpur in the preliminary decree giving 1/3^rd share in the suit property to the plaintiffs was ordered to be drawn up and it was further ordered that final decree be prepared on receipt of the report of the pleader commissioner to be appointed in due course through the process of law. He submits that the said decree was signed on 14.08.1986. He also submits that in the decree dated 14.08.1986 the area of the plot no.315, 308, 309 has been mentioned as 0.34 decimals, 0.35 decimals and 0.39 decimals respectively which are not matched with the area mentioned in the plaint. He submits that the area is not correctly typed in the preliminary decree and in view of that the petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been filed by the petitioners herein who happened to be the defendants in the said suit which has been rejected by the learned court on the erroneous ground. He further submits that against the final decree the petitioners herein have preferred the first appeal before the Hon’ble Patna High Court which has been rejected by the judgment dated 22.05.1998. He submits that after receiving the pleader commissioner report the said amendment petition has been filed before the learned court for correcting the area of the land in question which has been rejected. He further submits that the petitioners although happened to be the defendants in the said suit however on 3 C.M.P. No. 201 of 2022

¶48

2025:JHHC:14920

¶49

the petition of the petitioners the plaint can be amended. On this ground he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside.

¶50

On the other hand, Mrs. Neeharika Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite party no.1 has opposed the prayer and submits that the learned court has rightly rejected the same and in the appeal also the petitioners herein have not been able to satisfy the learned first appellate court. The learned trial court has gone through the pleader commissioner report and the petitioners also relied on the pleader commissioner report and in that view of the matter there is no illegality in the impugned order and as such, this petition may kindly be dismissed.

¶51

In view of the above submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that admittedly the partition suit being Title (Partition) Suit No.65-28/7986 was instituted by the ancestors of the Opposite parties herein and subsequently both the plaintiffs and the defendants have left for their heavenly abode and subsequently the legal heirs/successors of both the parties have been substituted in the suit and the suit was decreed on contest and 1/3^rd share has been directed to be divided between both the sides. Against the judgment dated 28.07.1986 the petitioners herein preferred the first appeal before the Patna High Court which has been rejected by the judgment dated 22.05.1998. In the meantime, the pleader commissioner has submitted the report before the learned trial court which is under consideration of the learned court for preparation of the final decree. After submission of the pleader commissioner report the said amendment petition has been filed by the petitioners herein who are the defendants in the said suit. The learned trial court has found that pleader commissioner report is there and in absence of any document the said amendment has been sought by the petitioners herein only on the ground of possession. The learned court has further found that the said judgment was 4 C.M.P. No. 201 of 2022

¶52

2025:JHHC:14920

¶53

delivered on the basis of the documents submitted and in absence of any document the area has been sought to be changed by the petitioners/defendants herein. The learned court has minutely looked into the petition and has also found that at the time of drafting of the plaint the conducting advocate has put his initial on the portion where the area of the suit land is mentioned and has concluded that special attention was paid by the learned counsel who has conducted the trial and in view of that the learned court has further found that it cannot be said that the said area was over looked or there was any clerical mistake in placing the decimals. The area has sought to be changed in absence of any document and in view of that the learned court has rejected the said petition. The Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order. As such, this petition is dismissed.

¶54

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶55

SI/ A.F.R.

¶56

5 C.M.P. No. 201 of 2022

Shakuntala Devi v. Mahabir Prajapati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakuntala Devi v. Mahabir Prajapati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tony Alias MD Tanwir Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Kumar Agarwal Vs the Union of India Thr Indian Cyber Coordination Center, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India

Bhola Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukesh Kumar Vs Smt. Sumitra Sahu

Smt. Radha Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baleshwar Sahu @ Baleshwar Prasad Vs Kundan Baraik