Dismissed

Deo Narayan Kamti v. Surendra Kumar Singh @ Shyamal

Patna HC20 Sept 2013CWJC/21041/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, dismissed the petitioner's application challenging the lower court's rejection of his plea for impleadment in a partition suit between strangers, holding he could seek title via a separate suit.

What did the court decide?

Application for impleadment in partition suit rejected; separate suit suggested for title claim.

Deo Narayan Kamti Vs Surendra Kumar Singh @ Shyamal — Property and Title | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21041 of 2011

¶3

====================================================== 1. Deo Narayan Kamti S/O Jilebi Kamti Resident Of Village- Hasanpur, P.S- Hasanpur, District-Samastipur.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner

¶5

Versus 1. Surendra Kumar Singh @ Shyamal S/O Late Babu Ambika Prasad Singh Resident Of Village, P.O +P.S- Hasanpur, District-Samastipur. 2. Babu Harendra Kumar Singh @ Lalan Singh S/O Babu Narendra Kumar Singh Resident Of Village, P.O And P.S- Hasanpur, District- Samastipur. 3. Babu Bhupendra Kumar Singh @ Bhulan Singh S/O Babu Narendra Kumar Singh Resident Of Village, P.O And P.S- Hasanpur, DistrictSamastipur. 4. Babu Satyendra Kumar Singh @ Bimal Singh S/O Babu Narendra Kumar Singh Resident Of Village, P.O And P.S- Hasanpur, District- Samastipur. 5. Babu Shailendra Kumar Singh @ Manik Singh S/O Babu Narendra Kumar Singh Resident Of Village, P.O And P.S- Hasanpur, DistrictSamastipur. 6. Babu Manoj Kumar Singh @ Murari Singh S/O Babu Narendra Kumar Singh Resident Of Village, P.O And P.S- Hasanpur, District- Samastipur. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Amarnath Jha, advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶6

.... .... Respondents

¶7

5 20-09-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1.

¶8

This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in T.S. No. 25/05 pending in the court of learned Sub Judge-II, Rosera seeking his impleadment in the suit. T.S. No. 25/05 which has been filed by respondent No.1 seeking partition in the joint family. The

¶9

Patna High Court CWJC No.21041 of 2011 (5) dt.20-09-2013

¶10

2/3

¶11

petitioner’s application for impleadment in the said partition suit was based on a plea that part of the suit property, as described in the plaint, in fact, belonged to him. The court below rejected the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner on the ground that in order to claim his title over any part of the property, which has been mentioned in the partition suit as suit property, he could have filed a separate suit. Such order was passed on 30.06.2009. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a Misc. Case No. 37/09 before the court below seeking review of the order dated 30.06.2009 which has been rejected by the order dated 17.09.2011. This is how the two orders, i.e., order dated 30.06.2009 and 17.09.2011 are impugned in the present application.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the petitioner is not allowed to be impleaded in the said partition suit as a party, serious prejudice will be caused to him, if the partition suit is decreed with respect to the properties mentioned in the plaint.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1, on the other hand, has submitted that in a partition suit the court is required to determine share of the coparceners of the joint family and the petitioner is complete stranger for the purpose of partition

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.21041 of 2011 (5) dt.20-09-2013

¶15

3/3

¶16

suit. He, accordingly, submits that the court below has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner for his impleadment as party in the suit. He further submits that his impleadment in the partition suit will unnecessarily complicate the adjudication in a suit which is purely for the purpose of partition.

¶17

Evidently, the petitioner is in no way connected with the joint family to which the respondent belongs. Learned court below has rightly rejected his application for impleadment as in a suit for partition the share of each coparcener is to be determined. It will be open to the petitioner to raise his claim of title over the property in an appropriate suit. The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶18

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)

¶20

BKS/-

Deo Narayan Kamti v. Surendra Kumar Singh @ Shyamal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deo Narayan Kamti v. Surendra Kumar Singh @ Shyamal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rabindra Prasad Vs Sita Devi

Brahmdeo Yadav Vs Jagdish Manjhi and Ors.

Saroj Kumar and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Yogendra Paswan Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Gopi Nath Kashyap and Anr. Vs Dwarika Prasad Kashyap and Ors.

Faiyaz Ahmad Vs Maulvi Nurul Ain and Ors.