The second appeal in a succession suit was dismissed in its entirety because a previous appeal against some respondents was already dismissed, and allowing this appeal would result in a contradictory judgment.
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 SECOND APPEAL No.42 of 2007
======================================================
YOGENDRA PANDEY and ANR
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
SUNAINA DEVI and ORS
... ... Respondent/s
| =============== Appearance : For the Appellant/s |
==== : |
=================================== Mr.Rama Sinha |
|---|---|---|
| For the Respondent/s =============== |
: ==== |
Mr. =================================== |
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
15 04-11-2019
The appeal has already been dismissed against respondent Nos.2 and 4. Now the office has placed this record whether the appeal shall proceed further in absence of respondent Nos.2 and 4.
The defendants 1st set are the appellants. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that she is the daughter of Lakshman Pandey of village-Baluwa, P.S.-Barhara, DistrictBhojpur and she claims 1/8th share in the suit property and also prayed for injunction. The suit was decreed. The first appellate court held that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/18th share and modified the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and partly allowed the appeal. Respondent No.2 is one of the plaintiffs and if the appeal is dismissed against respondent Nos.2 and 4, the appeal as a whole has to be dismissed in order to avoid contradictory judgment.
In this view of the fact, the appeal as a whole is dismissed.
Saurabh/- U
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
Yogendra Pandey
Sunaina Devi
Prabhat Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
