Disposed

Indra Mani Ranjan v. Alok Mani Ranjan

Patna HC23 Jan 2013C.R./1075/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil revision against an eviction decree where possession had already been handed over. The court ruled that the landlord-tenant findings in the eviction suit shall not prejudice the petitioner's claim in a pending partition suit and allowed him to seek remedies for articles remaining in the premises.

What did the court decide?

The finding in the eviction suit shall not prejudice the claim in the title partition suit; the petitioner is entitled to legal remedies regarding articles lying within the suit premises.

Indra Mani Ranjan Vs Alok Mani Ranjan — Landlord and Tenant | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.1075 of 2007

¶2

====================================================== Indra Mani Ranjan, son of Upendra Narain Verma, resident of Begusarai, P.O./P.S.- Begusarai, Pargana- Balia, District- Begusarai. .... Defendant .... Petitioner/s Versus Alok Mani Ranjan, son of Upendra Narain Verma, resident of Begusarai, P.O./P.S.- Begusarai, Pargana- Balia, District- Begusarai. ....Plaintiff .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kaushal Kumar

¶3

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER

¶4

6 23-01-2013 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Kaushal Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party.

¶5

This civil revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.3.2007 passed by the learned Munsif-I, Begusarai in Title Eviction Suit No.4 of 2002, whereby the learned court below has been pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant-petitioner to vacate the suit premises within sixty days of the judgment.

¶6

It is not in contest rather admitted that following the judgment and order under challenge, the delivery of possession of the suit property has been handed over to the decree-holder by virtue of proceedings arising from Title Execution Case No.9 of 2007.

¶7

Patna High Court C.R. No.1075 of 2007 (6) dt.23-01-2013

¶8

¶9

A supplementary affidavit has been filed today by the defendant-petitioner in which he has admitted in paragraph 4 that the petitioner is residing at Delhi. Meaning thereby the requirement for the house is not an issue. It is further submitted by the petitioner in paragraph 9 of the said supplementary affidavit that a Title Partition Suit No.149 of 2005 is pending consideration before the Civil Court, Begusarai and in which the suit property is also the subject-matter. The petitioner, however, has mentioned that there are some articles lying within the suit premises. He relies upon an informatory petition filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai placed at Annexure-2 of the supplementary affidavit.

¶10

Mr. Ghosarvey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while not disputing the factual aspect that the petitioner is residing at Delhi submits that the finding of the learned trial court in the eviction suit which is under challenge before this Court in the present application would prejudice the claim of the petitioner as raised in the partition suit and to that extent the interest of the petitioner may be protected. The submission made by the petitioner is fair and cannot be objected to by learned counsel appearing for the decree-holder-opposite party.

¶11

Patna High Court C.R. No.1075 of 2007 (6) dt.23-01-2013

¶12

¶13

In view of the circumstances governing the present application where following the judgment and decree under challenge the delivery of possession of the suit property has been handed over to the decree-holder and the petitioner admits to shifting of his residence to Delhi, no occasion arises to enter into the merits of the judgment and decree for academic purposes. Having observed as such this Court would also uphold the apprehensions of the petitioner that by virtue of the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the judgment and order under challenge, his rights and contentions raised in title partition suit, may be prejudiced.

¶14

Having considered the circumstances governing the case and the submissions of the contesting parties the present civil revision application stands disposed of with the clear stipulation that as the issue before the court below in the judgment and order under challenge was basically on the landlord-tenant relationship, any finding recorded by the learned trial court in the judgment and order passed in Eviction Suit No.4 of 2002 shall not act prejudice to the claim of the petitioner as raised in Title Partition Suit No.149 of 2005 and which should be decided on its own merits.

¶15

It goes without saying that the petitioner shall be

¶16

Patna High Court C.R. No.1075 of 2007 (6) dt.23-01-2013

¶17

¶18

entitled to take recourse to the remedy as may be available to him in law, in respect of the articles which he claims to be lying within the suit premises.

¶19

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶20

SKPathak/-

Indra Mani Ranjan v. Alok Mani Ranjan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indra Mani Ranjan v. Alok Mani Ranjan

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

Ramvilash Singh Vs Ram Janam Singh and Ors.

Bibi Bijloo and Ors. Vs Bibi Aaisa and Ors.

Mir Mohammad Sajjad Alam @ Mir Sajjed Hussain Vs Md. Istiyaque Hassan

Jyoti Kumar Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar

Lalan Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Awdhesh Ram Vs The State Of Bihar