First Appeal dismissed as infructuous. The appeal proceeded against a final decree which the court found had become infructuous due to a subsequent judgment. No substantive legal issue was decided beyond the procedural dismissal.
The Instant First Appeal is dismissed having become infructuous.
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 FIRST APPEAL No. 160 of 2006
| AI(i) | Sushila Devi, w/o deceased sole appellant Jagdish Chandra Roy |
|---|---|
| AI(ii) | PradipKumar Roy, s/o the deceased |
| AI(iii)a | Kavita Devi, w/o the deceased AI(iii)Naresh Kumar Roy |
| AI(iii)b | Nitish Kumar Roy, s/o the deceased AI(iii)Naresh Kumar Roy |
| AI(iii)c | Kaushal Raj, s/o the deceased AI(iii) Naresh Kumar Roy, All AI(iii)a to AI(iii)c resident of village Paiktola, P.S. Araria, Distt. Araria |
| AI(iv) | Suresh Kumar Roy, s/o the deceased |
| AI(v) | Avinash Kumar Roy, s/o the deceased |
| AI(vi) | Vikash Kumar Roy, s/o the deceased |
| AI(vii) | Prakash Kumar Roy, s/o the deceased All r/o of village- Paiktola, P.O- Paiktola, P.S. Araria, Distt. Araria |
| AI(viii) | Dropadi Devi, D/o the deceased, w/o Devanand Gupta, r/o Mohalla- Durgapur, Katihar, P.O., P.S., & Distt. - Katihar |
| AI(ix) | Sulekha Devi, D/o of the deceased, w/o Surendra Prasad Vaishya, r/o Simri Bakhtiyarpur, P.O & P.S.- Simri Bakhtiyarpur, Distt- Saharsa |
| AI(x) | Asha Devi, D/o of the deceased, w/o Late Vishwajeet Prasad Gupta, r/o Din Dayal Road, Barauni, P.O. & P.S. Barauni, Distt. Begusarai |
| AI(xi) | Usha Devi, D/o of the deceased, w/o Late Abhay Sarkar, r/o Baliabalon, P.S. Salmari, Distt. Katihar |
| AI(xii) | Maushmi Ranjan, D/o of the deceased, w/o Mukesh Ranjan, r/o Mohalla- Sainik Colony, Danapur, Distt. Patna |
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
| 1. | Urmila Devi(deceased) |
|---|---|
| 2(i) | Most. Shova Devi @ Shobha Kumari, w/o- Late Awadhesh Kumar Roy, r/o village- Paiktola, P.S. & Distt. Araria |
| 3(a) | SarojKumar Gupta, s/o Sudhir Prasad Gupta |
| 3(b) | Manoj Kumar Gupta, s/o Sudhir Prasad Gupta Both r/o Mohalla Argara chowk, P.O. & P.S.- Katihar, Distt. Katihar, Pin- 854101 |
| 4. | Smt. Neelam Devi, w/o Girish Prasad Gupta, D/o Late Prabhash Chandra Roy, r/o Mohallah- Barmasia, P.O, P.S. & Distt. Katihar |
| 5. | Smt. Punam Devi, w/o Sri Krishnadeo Gupta, D/o Late Prabhash Chandra Roy, r/o village Sujapur, P.O. Sujapur, P.S. Semapur, Distt. Katihar |
| 6. | Menaka Kumari, D/o Late Prabhash Chandra Roy, r/o village- Paiktola, P.S & Distt. Araria |
| 7(a) | Smt. Neetu Devi, w/o deceased respondent no. 7 |
Patna High Court FA No. 160 of 2006(61) dt.18-08-2023 2/3
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. S.S. Dvivedi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parth Gaurav, Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Kr. Pandey, Advocate Ms. Gargi, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Sr. Advocate with Wasi Akhtar, Advocate Saba Ashfaqul, Advocate Aiwan Hassan, Advocate ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER
61 18-08-2023 Learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents are present.
Patna High Court FA No. 160 of 2006(61) dt.18-08-2023 3/3
45 and 72. Learned senior counsel further submits that in view of the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2013 passed in First Appeal No. 703 of 1976, the final decree has become infructuous, as such, the instant appeal has also become infructuous.
(Khatim Reza, J)
premchand/-
U
Sushila Devi, w/o deceased sole appellant Jagdish Chandra Roy
Pradip Kumar Roy, s/o the deceased
Kavita Devi, w/o the deceased AI(iii)Naresh Kumar Roy
Nitish Kumar Roy, s/o the deceased AI(iii)Naresh Kumar Roy
Kaushal Raj
Suresh Kumar Roy, s/o the deceased
KHATIM REZA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
