Dismissed

Har Shankar Pandey and Ors. v. Akshyabat Pandey and Ors.

Patna HC26 Feb 2013SA/254/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second Appeal challenging a decree for partition. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that since the auction purchaser never took possession within the statutory limitation, their title extinguished, leaving the property as joint family property in joint possession of the parties.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; decree for partition affirmed; property declared joint family property.

Har Shankar Pandey and Ors. Vs Akshyabat Pandey and Ors. — Partition | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Second Appeal No.254 of 2011

¶3

====================================================== 1.Hari Shankar Pandey 2. Rama Shankar Pandey 3. Ajai Kumar Pandey 4. Manoj Kumar Pandey, all sons of late Devendra Nath Pandey 5. Most. Malti Devi wife of late Devendra Nath Pandey, all residents of village-Purwari Raya, P.S. Chapra Town District-Saran. ……Defendant 1^st Set/Appellants/Appellants. .... .... Appellant/s

¶4

Versus

¶5

1. Akshyabat Pandey, son of Kamlakar Pandey, resident of villagePurwari Rauza, P.S.-Chapra Town, District-Saran. 2. Sachindra Nath Pandey 3. Sachidanand Pandey 4. Dinesh Pandey 5. Ramesh Pandey 6. Daya Pandey 7. Shail Kumari Devi, all sons and daughter of late Harihar Pandey 8. Mahabir Sharan Pandey, son of late Nityanand Pandey 9. Umesh Tiwary 10. Ramesh Tiwary 11. Dinesh Tiwary, all sons of Baijnath Tiwary 12. Baij Nath Tiwari, son of not known, all R. No. 2 to 12, resident of village and P.O. Mahrauli, P.S. Doriganj, District-Saran.

¶6

Patna High Court SA No.254 of 2011 (7) dt.26-02-2013

¶7

2 / 9

¶8

Asha Devi

¶9

Shandhya Devi, boh daughters of late Nityanand Pandey

¶10

Purnima Devi doughter of Diwakar Pandey

¶11

Ram Naresh Pandey

¶12

Ram Pravesh Pandey, both sons of late Sidhnath Pandey, resident of village-Rauza P.S. Chapra Town District-Saran. Defendats IInd Set/Respondents second set Respondent II set 18. Sarbdanand Pandey, son of Kamlakar Pandey, resident of villagePurwari Rauza, P.S. Chapra,Town, District-Saran.

¶13

….Defendent 3^rd Set/Respondent –II set/Respondents.

¶14

Lakhraj Rai

¶15

Paras Rai, both sons of late Jai Lal Rai, Resident of village-Purwari Rauza, P.S. Chapra Town, District-Saran. Defendant 4^th Set/Respondent/Respondent 4^th Set.

¶16

Gayanti Devi

¶17

Nirmala Devi, both D/o Kamlakar Pandey

¶18

Vimla Devi

¶19

Manju Devi, both D/o Dharm nath Pandey 25 Tribhuwan Prasad Yadav, s/o Paras Rai, all respondent nos. 21 to 25 R/o Vill-Rauza, P.S. Chapra Town, Dist-Saran.

¶20

Defendant/Respondent/5^th Set Respondents.

¶21

Abhisheik Ojha

¶22

27 Abhinaw Ojha, both sons of Sri Ram Ojha 28. Anamika Ojha

¶23

Prinka Ojha, both sons of Sri Ram Ojha, all respondent nos. 26 to 29 at & P.O. Gobeahi, Dist-Muzaffarpur.

¶24

Patna High Court SA No.254 of 2011 (7) dt.26-02-2013

¶25

3 / 9

¶26

Sunita Devi @ Savita Devi, D/o Late Devendranath Pandey R/o

¶27

Village-Purwari Rauza, P.S. Chapra, Town District-Saran.

¶28

Suman Pandey, s/o Late Satyadeo Pandey

¶29

Shashi Devi, W/o Bhushan Tiwary, all respondent nos. 30 to 32 R/o

¶30

village-Mangolapur, P.S. Jalalpur, Saran, Dist-Saran.

¶31

Kiran Devi, W/o Late Prashuram Tiwary, R/o vill-Tekniwash P.S. Rvilganj, Dist-Saran..

¶32

Pushpa Devi W/o Srikant Tiwary, R/o village Rewari P.O. Tekniwash Distt-Saran.

¶33

Most. Manorma Devi W/o Narbada Pandey

¶34

36 Prakash Pandey s/o Narbada Pandey

¶35

37 Abhishek Pandey

¶36

38 . Gogo Kumari

¶37

Mongo Kumari, all sons and D/o Narbada Pandey

¶38

Mostt. Punam Pandey W/o Late Dharmendra Pandey

¶39

Priya

¶40

Diksha

¶41

43 Manisha, all are daughters of Darmendra Pandey

¶42

Ashutosh Pandey

¶43

Gita Devi, W/o late Kripa Shankar Pandey 46 Bhanu Kumar

¶44

Shantu Kumar

¶45

Chanchala Kumari, all sons and daughter of Kripashankar Pandey 49. Sudhakar Pandey S/o late Dharm Nath Pandey

¶46

Vikash Ojha, S/o late Bipin Bihari Pandey

¶47

Rani Devi

¶48

Patna High Court SA No.254 of 2011 (7) dt.26-02-2013

¶49

4 / 9

¶50

Kalpana Devi 53. Babi Kumari 54. Guriya Kumari, all daughters of late Bipin Bihari Pandey, all respondent nos. 35 to 53 are R/o vill-Ratanpura Ojha Tola, P.O. Chapra, Dist-Saran. 55. Vishnu Devi, D/o LateBaijnath Pandey 56. Sita Devi 57. Gita Devi 58. Urmila Devi, all D/o Dharmnath Pandey all 54 to 57 R/o villMehrauli, P.S. Doriganj Dist-Saran.

¶51

.... .... Respondent/s

¶52

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr. ======================================================

¶53

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH

¶54

ORAL ORDER

¶55

7 26-02-2013 Heard Mr. Keshav Prasad Srivastava, the learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent no.1. 2. This appeal has been filed by the defendant 1^st set assailing the judgment and decree of affirmance passed by the

¶56

Patna High Court SA No.254 of 2011 (7) dt.26-02-2013

¶57

5 / 9

¶58

appellate court below upholding the decree for partition in favour of the plaintiff

¶59

The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition of his share in the suit property mentioned in Schedule -1 of the plaint asserting the same to be joint family property in which the parties to the suit have unity of title and possession. The defendant 1^st set has resisted the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that there had already been partition in the year 1936 by Partition Suit No. 51/36 between the parties for the entire joint family property. It is the further case that the suit property is no more joint family property as it was auction sold and purchased by Mathura Prasad in auction sale dated 19-6-40 held in Execution Case No. 1778/39 of the court of Munsif I, Chapra. The defendant-1^st set further has asserted to have purchased the suit property from the auction purchaser Mathura Prasad by sale deed dated 28-1-46 and came in possession of the same.

¶60

The trial court as well as the appellate court below has come to the finding that the contesting defendant 1^st set has failed to establish that the delivery of possession was taken by the auction purchaser in pursuance to auction sale of the suit property which remained in joint possession of the plaintiff and the defendants. Both the courts below thereafter have come to the

¶61

Patna High Court SA No.254 of 2011 (7) dt.26-02-2013

¶62

6 / 9

¶63

conclusion that there is unity of title and jointness of possession between the parties with regard to the suit property and accordingly granted decree for partition between the parties.

¶64

Mr. Srivastava, the learned senior counsel has assailed the impugned judgments of both the courts below on the ground that in the earlier suit for partition of the year 1936 the court had fully considered the case of loan taken by the predecessor of the plaintiff and thereafter passed the preliminary decree for partition.

¶65

It has been urged that in the final decree proceeding also the pleader commissioner took notice of the auction sale of the suit property and therefore excluded the same from the final decree . It has been canvassed by Mr. Srivastava that the plaintiff had not challenged the said auction sale and therefore he would be estopped from establishing his claim over the suit property. It has been also argued that the defendant 1^st set-appellants having purchased the suit property from the auction purchaser have come to acquire the exclusive title and possession over the same, and after auction sale the nature of the suit property had changed and it no more remained the joint family property. It has been contended that both the courts below have not considered these crucial aspects and have reached to erroneous findings of fact ignoring material evidence in this regard.

¶66

Patna High Court SA No.254 of 2011 (7) dt.26-02-2013

¶67

7 / 9

¶68

From the perusal of the impugned judgments of both the courts below and after considering the submission of Mr. Srivastava, the learned senior counsel for the appellants, it is pellucid that undisputedly the suit property was subject matter of partition along with other properties of the family in the earlier partition suit No. 51/36 between the parties in which a preliminary decree was also passed. However, before the preparation of the final decree in that suit, the suit property was auction sold and purchased by the creditor-decree holder Mathura Prasad in Execution Case No. 1778/39. The pleader commissioner after taking notice of the auction sale of the suit property did not include the same as the subject matter of the final decree proceeding and consequently no final decree was passed for the suit property in Partition Suit No. 51/1936 .

¶69

However, the plaintiff has claimed that the auction purchaser did not take the delivery of possession of the suit land as his claim was satisfied by the predecessor of the plaintiff and the suit property has continued to be the joint family property in joint possession of the parties. The contesting defendants have failed to bring on record cogent evidence to establish that the delivery of possession over the suit land had been effected in favour of the auction purchaser. As such the auction sale had definitely been not

¶70

Patna High Court SA No.254 of 2011 (7) dt.26-02-2013

¶71

8 / 9

¶72

acted upon and remained only a paper transaction.

¶73

Under Article 134 of the Limitation Act, a period of one year has been prescribed for an auction purchaser to take possession of the property subject matter of auction sale. In the present case it could not be established by the defendant 1^st set that the auction purchaser had taken delivery of possession over the suit land .It is also not the case of the defendant 1^st set, who claims exclusive title over the suit property by purchase from the auction purchaser, that the auction purchaser had taken steps for delivery of possession within one year of the auction sale becoming absolute or had filed a suit within twelve years for recovery of possession as prescribed under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. Both the courts below, on scrutiny of evidence, have come to concurrent finding that the parties to the suit are in joint possession over the suit property At this juncture it will be pertinent to take into notice section 27 of the Limitation Act which provides for extinguishment of right to property after the expiry of the period prescribed for the suit to recover possession. The cumulative effect of absence of delivery of possession in favour of the auction purchaser and the provisions of the Limitation Act would be that the title of the auction purchaser had stood extinguished and the suit property has continued to be the joint

¶74

Patna High Court SA No.254 of 2011 (7) dt.26-02-2013

¶75

9 / 9

¶76

family property of the plaintiff and the defendants. It is also not in dispute that in the final decree proceeding the suit property was excluded and therefore ultimately there had been no partition with regard to the suit property. Once after the right of the auction purchaser to the suit property on the basis of auction sale gets extinguished, the claim of the defendant 1^st set who have asserted their exclusive title over the suit land by purchase from the said auction purchaser also gets extinguished. The conclusion reached by the courts below that the suit property remained in the joint family property of the plaintiff and the defendants therefore is correct and based on proper appreciation of the evidence as led by the parties. The issues between the parties are now concluded by the findings of fact and there is no perversity in the same.

¶77

In the result, there is no substantial question of law arising in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶78

.Roy/-

¶79

(V. Nath, J)

Har Shankar Pandey and Ors. v. Akshyabat Pandey and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Har Shankar Pandey and Ors. v. Akshyabat Pandey 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

Sheo Kumari Devi and Ors. Vs Ram Ashish Ram and Ors.

Dwarika Ahir Vs Dasiya Devi Ors.

Ramsagar Tanti and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar

Ram Sharan Goswami and Anr. Vs Lalmuni Devi and Ors.

Nathuni Sah Kanu and Ors. Vs Budhan Pd. and Ors.

Tripurari Prasad Singh and Anr. Vs Ram Shankar Prasad Singh and Ors.