This is a brief oral order dismissing a civil review petition. The court found no merit in the petitioners' submissions challenging the lower courts' concurrent finding that a sale deed executed without title was illegal and void.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.321 of 2017
In
Second Appeal No.381 of 2013
======================================================
... ... Appellants/Petitioners
Versus
| =================== | ... ... Respondents/Opposite Parties =================================== |
|---|---|
| Appearance : | |
| For the Petitioner/s : |
Mr.Shashi Dhar Jha |
| For the Respondent/s : =================== |
Mr. =================================== |
| CORAM: HONOURABL | E MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA |
Patna High Court C. REV. No.321 of 2017(4) dt.07-01-2019 2/3
ORAL ORDER
4 07-01-2019
Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
Petitioners have filed this civil review petition to review the judgment and order dated 21.07.2017 passed in Second Appeal No.381 of 2013 by which the second appeal has been dismissed holding that no substantial question of law is involved in view of the concurrent finding of both the courts that the sale deed executed by defendant 4th set in favour of defendant 1st , 2nd , and 3rd set is illegal void on account of lack of title in the land.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of sale deed executed by defendant 4th set in favour of defendant 1st , 2nd and 3rd set as illegal, void ab initio as the defendant 4th set had no title over the lands by virtue of the judgment passed in Partition Suit No.44 of 1973 on compromise. It is submitted that one of the members of the defendant 4th set was minor and no permission was granted by the court to implead the minor. It is further submitted that till date no decree has been prepared in Partition Suit No.44 of 1973 which was disposed of on the basis of compromise on 11.03.1977 and, therefore, the judgment has to be reviewed as the second appeal has been dismissed that no ground of fraud is pleaded in the pleadings of the parties.
I find no force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the simple ground as it appears from perusal of
Patna High Court C. REV. No.321 of 2017(4) dt.07-01-2019 3/3
the judgment that defendant 4th set and plaintiff were descendants of common ancestor. Partition Suit No.44 of 1973 was filed for partition of the property among the plaintiff and defendant 4th set. Both the parties entered into compromise. Even the minors entered into compromise by the order of the court and the court found that the compromise is in the interest of the minors. Only thereafter the suit was disposed of on the basis of compromise on 11.03.1977. The disputed plot fell in the share of the plaintiffs in the compromise judgment in Partition Suit No.44 of 1973 but the defendant 4th set executed the sale deed with regard to the lands fell in the share of the plaintiffs and the first court held that the defendant 4th set had no right and title to sell the lands fell in the share of plaintiffs by virtue of compromise in the judgment in Partition Suit No.44 of 1973. The first appellate court also on the appeal filed by defendant 3rd set concurred with the view of the trial court and accordingly, the second appeal was dismissed having no substantial question as the same issue has been concurrently decided by the court.
Having considered the facts aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this civil review petition and the same is dismissed.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
S.KUMAR/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the civil review petition challenging the dismissal of the second appeal warranting a review.
Whether the finding that the sale deed was illegal due to lack of title in the land requires reconsideration.
Anandi Chaudhary and Others
Most. Janak Nandani Devi and Others
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
