Dismissed

Most.Bhagwati Devi and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC17 Mar 2011CWJC/11521/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the trial court's order admitting new private respondents in a title suit. The Court found no error in allowing evidence by parties claiming title through a deceased agent's power of attorney due to changed circumstances post-death.

What did the court decide?

The application for writ of certiorari or quo warranto is dismissed for not suffering legal grounds.

Most.Bhagwati Devi and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Partition | Patna HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11521 of 2010

¶2

MOST. BHAGWATI DEVI W/O LATE SINGHESHWAR MANDAL R/O VILL.- SARDHO, P.S.- SABOUR, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR

¶3

ANIRUDH PRASAD MANDAL S/O LATE SINGHESHWAR MANDAL R/O VILL.- SARDHO, P.S.- SABOUR, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR

¶4

GOPAL MANDAL MINOR S/O LATE SINGHESHWAR MANDAL, UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MOST. BHAGWATI DEVI R/O VILL.- SARDHO, P.S.SABOUR, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR

¶5

RANJEET MANDAL MINOR S/O LATE SINGHESHWAR MANDAL, UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MOST. BHAGWATI DEVI R/O VILL.- SARDHO, P.S.SABOUR, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR

¶6

Versus

¶7

THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, BHAGALPUR

¶8

DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, ZILA PARISHAD, BHAGALPUR

¶9

ANCHAL ADHIKARI, SABOUR ANCHAL, P.S.- SABOUR, DISTT.BHAGALPUR

¶10

……….. Respondents Ist Party

¶11

BIJAY KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE YUGAL KISHORE SINGH R/O MOHALLA- JAWARIPUR, P.S.- TILKAMANJHI, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR 5. SMT. HIRA DEVI W/O BIJAY KUMAR SINGH R/O MOHALLAJAWARIPUR, P.S.- TILKAMANJHI, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR

¶12

………. Respondents 2^nd party

¶13

For the Petitioners:For the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5:For the State:-----------

¶14

Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey & Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates Mr. V. Nath,

¶15

Mr. Waliur Rahman & Mr. Sanjay Kr. Ghosarvey, Advocates Mr. Rajeev Lochan A.C. To G.A-IX

¶16

17.03.2011

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 as also for private respondent nos. 4 and 5.

¶18

The petitioners along with one Banarsi Mandal were the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 26 of 1994 filed against

¶19

¶20

respondent nos. 1 to 3 for declaration of right title and interest in the Suit lands and that the survey entries made in favour of the State Government to the extent of their lands was wrong. The petitioners are stated to have executed a Power Of Attorney in favour of Banarsi Mandal. Banarsi Mandal in turn transferred lands in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5. The prayer of respondent nos. 4 and 5 to be impleded earlier in the Suit and in Title Appeal No. 106 of 1998, preferred by respondent nos. 1 to 3 was disallowed as Banarsi Mandal was alive. After Banarsi Mandal has been deceased on 26.11.2009 during the pendency of the Appeal, the prayer of respondent nos. 4 and 5 has been allowed as there remained none to contest and defend the actions of Banarsi Mandal.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Banarsi Mandal did not have any authority to execute any title deeds in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5. The Power Of Attorney had been revoked. The Suit was only for correction of revenue entries and no more.

¶22

The Court finds from the pleadings of the petitioners that the Suit was for declaration of right title and interest also. What was the content of the Power Of Attorney. What was permissible or impermissible therein. On what date it was revoked. These are all very relevant matters even insofar as the corrections in the entries are

¶23

¶24

concerned. All these questions of facts will have to be decided and enquired into when there will have to be a defence led in support of the issues. If the respondent nos. 4 and 5 have been permitted to produce evidence in support of the correctness of the entries, claiming under a Power Of Attorney after the death of the person from whom they derived title through Power Of Attorney, this Court finds no error in the well discussed reasoning of the trial court with regard to the changed circumstances after the death of Banarsi Mandal to permit them to be impleaded as party, warranting any interference by this Court.

¶25

The application is dismissed.

¶26

P.K

¶27

( Navin Sinha, J.)

Most.Bhagwati Devi and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Most.Bhagwati Devi and Ors. v. the State of Bihar 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

Braj Kishore Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

The Bihar State Agricultural M Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Basanti Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Jahuri Paswan Vs Hare Ram Prasad Singh

Baban Singh and Ors. Vs Radhe Shyam Singh and Ors.

Awadhesh Kumar Chaudhary Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.