Disposed

Most. Meena Devi v. Ranjeet Kumar Sah and Ors.

Patna HC9 Sept 2013CWJC/7011/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil writ petition, the High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application before the lower court for permission to sell joint family property to meet medical expenses, noting deficiencies in the previous prayer's description and documentation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file a fresh application for sale of property for medical expenses within ten days.

Most. Meena Devi Vs Ranjeet Kumar Sah and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7011 of 2013

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Most. Meena Devi W/O Late Bhola Pd. Sah Resident Of Mangal Bazar, Phalpatti, P.O. + P.S. - Katihar, District - Katihar

¶5

.... .... Petitioner

¶6

Versus 1. Ranjeet Kumar Sah 2. Gopal Prasad Sah 3. Ashok Kumar Sah All are sons of Late Lelhoo Sah, Resident of Mohalla - Mangal Bazar, P.O. + P.S. - Katihar, District – Katihar. 4. Smt. Binda Devi D/O Late Lelhoo Sah, W/O Baidh Nath Prasad, resident of Mohalla - Naya Bazar, P.O. + P.S. - Naya Bazar, District - Chapra 5. Smt. Durgi Devi D/O Late Lelhoo Sah, W/O Dilip Kumar, Resident Of Village - Simraha, P.O. + P.S. - Simraha, District - Araria 6. Smt. Bimal Devi D/O Late Lelhoo Sah, W/O Binay Prasad, Resident of Mohalla -Gulzarbag, C/O Ramkrishan Sah Binay Hotel, Gulzarbag, Patna-7 .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Krishna Prasad For the Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Dhananjay Mishra For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. P.K. Jaipuriyar

¶7

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

¶8

ORAL ORDER

¶9

4 09-09-2013 The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 06.02.2013 passed by learned Sub-Judge-III, Katihar in Title Suit No. 46 of 1996 whereby the Court below has rejected the petitioner’s prayer to sell 15 kathas of land from the joint family property.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently submitted that learned Court below had allowed such prayer in favour of the Respondents No. 2 and 3, pursuant to which, they have sold the property. According to him in case of the petitioner, the Court below has given a differential treatment and has not

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.7011 of 2013 (4) dt.09-09-2013 P2/3

¶12

allowed the petitioner, by the impugned order, to sell the property. It is submitted that the petitioner is in urgent need of money to meet the expenses for the treatment of her heart ailment. The medical prescriptions have been brought on record by way of annexure along with rejoinder to counter affidavit.

¶13

From the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below has rejected the application on the ground that description of land detailed in prayer portion of the application of the petitioner (defendant No. 2) dated 03.10.2012, for which permission for sale being sought for, was vague. The Court further pointed out that the petitioner / defendant No. 2 did not disclose the estimate of medical treatment, from the doctor to show as to how much money was required for her treatment.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents have opposed the present application. It is submitted that the suit, which was filed in the year 1996, is at the final stage of adjudication and at such stage, the learned Court below rightly rejected the application for selling part of the suit land.

¶15

Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate to dispose of this application with a liberty to the petitioner to file an application afresh before the Court below alongwith the estimate for meeting the expenses for

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.7011 of 2013 (4) dt.09-09-2013 P3/3

¶17

treatment of her heart ailment or any other ailment and further to meet other expenses like repairing of the old and dilapidated house, by giving the correct and specific details of the property proposed to be sold to meet expenses.

¶18

If such application is filed within ten days from today, the Court below shall consider it, in accordance with law. It is also observed that since it is a matter of the year 1996, the Court below shall make endeavor to dispose of the case as expeditiously as

¶19

possible.

¶20

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)

¶21

Saif/-

Most. Meena Devi v. Ranjeet Kumar Sah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Most. Meena Devi v. Ranjeet Kumar Sah 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

Shukdeo Mandal and Ors. Vs Heeraman Mandal and Ors.

Kamal Kishore Sinha Vs Rakhi Sinha

Rehana Khatoon and Ors. Vs Most. Nazmun Nissa and Ors.

Siya Sharan Singh Vs Ram Bhajan Sharma and Ors.

Md. Idrish Vs Md. Sanaullah and Ors.

Rameshwar Ram Vs Rama Shankar Prasad Singh