Dismissed

Jitendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC21 Jun 2013CWJC/5829/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a petitioner's application seeking to mark a certified copy of a Title Suit plaint as an exhibit in an eviction suit. The court held the petitioner was estopped from denying the landlord's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, as the existence of landlord-tenant relationship was the primary issue.

What did the court decide?

writ petition dismissed; application to mark certified copy of plaint rejected.

Jitendra Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5829 of 2013

¶3

====================================================== Jitendra Kumar Son of Late Banshidhar Prasad Resident Of Mohalla - Khetari Baidhyanath Sahay Ka Hata, Jail Road, Ara, Police Station - Ara Town, District - Bhojpur At Ara

¶4

.... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Asha Devi Wife Of Late Naresh Prasad Resident Of Mohalla - Shivganj, Police Station - Ara Town, District - Bhojpur 3. Pradeep Kumar Son Of Late Naresh Prasad Resident Of Mohalla - Shivganj, Police Station - Ara Town, District - Bhojpur 4. Sanjay Kumar Son Of Late Naresh Prasad Resident Of Mohalla - Shivganj, Police Station - Ara Town, District - Bhojpur 5. Sushil Kumar Son Of Late Banshidhar Prasad Resident Of Mohalla - Khetari Baidhyanath Sahay Ka Hata, Jail Road, Ara, Police Station - Ara Town, District - Bhojpur At Ara 6. Satish Kumar Son Of Late Banshidhar Prasad Resident Of Mohalla - Khetari Baidhyanath Sahay Ka Hata, Jail Road, Ara, Police Station - Ara Town, District - Bhojpur At Ara 7. Kapil Deo Kumar Son Of Late Banshidhar Prasad Resident Of Mohalla - Khetari Baidhyanath Sahay Ka Hata, Jail Road, Ara, Police Station - Ara Town, District - Bhojpur At Ara .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Ms. Archana Sinha For the State : Mr. Niraj Kumar, A.C. to G.P.-20 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 21-06-2013 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.02.2013 passed in Title Suit No. 30 of 1991 whereby learned Sub-ordinate Judge-V^th , Ara, has refused to mark certified copy of the plaint of Title Suit No. 250 of 2003 as an exhibit in the case and rejected

¶5

Patna High Court CWJC No.5829 of 2013 (2) dt.21-06-2013 2/3

¶6

the petition dated 07.09.2012 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner is defendant in the Eviction suit No. 30 of 1991.

¶7

In the eviction suit, the petitioner questioned the title of the defendant, the landlord with a plea that the suit land in fact belonged to the State of Bihar. Twelve years after filing of the said eviction suit, a Title Suit No. 250 of 2003 is said to have been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar claiming title over the property in dispute.

¶8

By the said petition dated 07.09.2012, the petitioner sought to mark certified copy of the plaint of title suit No. 250 of 2003 as an exhibit in the Eviction suit which came to be rejected vide order dated 19.02.2013.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned senior counsel that in view of the specific plea taken by the petitioner in the eviction suit that the suit property belonged to the State of Bihar, the eviction suit was not maintainable under the B.B.C. Act.

¶10

I am not ready to accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, for two reasons. Firstly, in an eviction suit the Court has to decide whether relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties or not. Title over the property is an incidental matter which also may be taken note of. Secondly, Section 116 of the

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.5829 of 2013 (2) dt.21-06-2013 3/3

¶12

Evidence Act operates against the petitioner inasmuch as it is impermissible for a tenant during the continuance of tenancy to deny the title of the landlord at the time of initiation of such tenancy. I am of the view, the petitioner is estopped, while claiming to be a tenant, from denying the title of the original landlord.

¶13

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the case and this application is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)

¶15

Saif/-

Jitendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Prasad Sharma and Ors. Vs Ram Pravesh Singh and Ors.

Bipin Bihari Manjhi Vs Ratan Kumari

Ravi Shankar Singh Vs Smt. Shobha Prasad

Badari Ram Vs Bacha Pandey and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Krishna Murari Prasad and Ors.

Shyam Kumar Singh Vs Ram Kumar Singh