The High Court of Patna dismissed an application for impleadment. The court held the presence of petitioners was not necessary as they failed to prima facie prove heirship and the original plaintiffs were domini litis with no protracted claims against them.
Application for impleadment stands dismissed.
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 MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.499 of 2018
======================================================
Versus
All sons of late Bachcha Bhagat.
All resident of village Khajuri Tiwari Tola, P.S. Kuchaikot, Distt. Gopalganj. Plaintiffs-Respondents 1st set.
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Ms. Mallika Mazumdar, Advocate. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER
7 22-11-2022 Heard Mr. Mohammad Sufyan, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Ms. Mallika Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioners are intervenors who filed the petition before the learned Trial Court under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code for their impleadment in Title Suit No. 33
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.499 of 2018(7) dt.22-11-2022 2/3
of 1990 filed by the plaintiffs/respondents. The original plaintiff had come with the case that one Gopal Bhagat who was his uncle died issue-less in state of jointness with him. So the property of Gopal Bhagat has devolved upon him. Further case of the plaintiffs/respondents is that the defendant Mahesh Bhagat who is from branch of Prahlad Bhagat, with an intention to snatch the property of Gopal Bhagat from the plaintiffs, has created a forged and fabricated gift deed dated 11.6.1982. Accordingly, he prayed that the gift deed be declared null and void.
The defendants filed their written statement and claimed that Gopal Bhagat did not die issue-less. He had two daughters and with permission of his daughters, he had voluntarily executed the gift deed dated 11.6.1982 in their favour. The intervenors/petitioners came out with a new case that in the genealogical table mentioned in Schedule-II of the plaint it has wrongly been depicted that Gopal Bhagat was not having any issue, but fact of the matter is that the intervenors are the legal heirs of the daughters of Gopal Bhagat, namely, Laxmania and Godhniya. It is an admitted position that Laxmania and Godhniya during their life time did not take any steps for challenging the gift deed executed by their so called
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.499 of 2018(7) dt.22-11-2022 3/3
father Gopal Bhagat. Even after the death of Laxmania and Godhniya, the petitioners did not take any steps for challenging the gift deed executed by their maternal grandfather. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the gift deed executed in favour of the defendants, they have separate cause of action to challenge the same, but that has not been challenged till date. However, in the petition for impleadment, the petitioners have not even prima facie came with a proof that they are the heirs of Gopal Bhagat through Laxmania and Godhniya. It is an admitted legal position that the plaintiff is dominus litis and nobody can be added as a party against the wish of the plaintiffs / defendants . The plaintiff has not claimed any relief against the intervenors/petitioners. As such, in my opinion, the presence of the petitioners is not necessary for deciding the suit completely and effectually.
Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the petition filed by the petitioners. In the result, this application stands dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
S.Ali/- U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are necessary parties to be impleaded in the title suit under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the CPC.
Whether the petitioners have prima facie proven their status as legal heirs of the grandfather through the intermediate generation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Awadh Kishore Bhagat
Gautam Bhagat
Shiv Kumari Devi
Prabhawati Devi
Durgawati Devi
Ram Chandra Bhagat
Anil Kumar Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
