Disposed

Munna Yadav v. Rekha Yadav

Patna HC9 Oct 2023C.Misc./306/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil miscellaneous petition regarding a pending partition suit, the High Court directed the subordinate court to conclude the title suit within six months. If not concluded within that period, the petitioner was allowed to complete house construction subject to an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Court below to conclude the Title Suit No. 56 of 2014 within six months; otherwise, allow the petitioner to complete construction on undertaking.

Munna Yadav Vs Rekha Yadav — Partition | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.306 of 2021

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Munna Yadav s/o late Chhathu Yadav r/o village Mudila, PO and PS Ram Nagar, district west Champaran.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rekha Yadav s/o late Chandra Yadav r/o village Ramesh Sharma, r/o village Mudila, PO and PS Ram Nagar, district west Champaran, at present r/o sonkhar PO and PS Ramnagar, district west champaran.

¶7

Jugeshar Yadav s/o late Chhathu Yadav r/o village Mudila, PO and PS Ram Nagar, district west Champaran.

¶8

Jhunna Yadav s/o late Chhathu Yadav r/o village Mudila, PO and PS Ram Nagar, district west Champaran.

¶9

Most. Dulari Devi w/o late Chhathu Yadav r/o village Mudila, PO and PS Ram Nagar, district west Champaran.

¶10

Maya Devi d/o late Chhathu Yadav w/o Rajesh Yadav r/o village Phulwaria, PO and PS Lauria, district west Champaran.

¶11

Bramha Yadav s/o late Yodha Yadav r/o village Chhawani, PO and PS and district Bettiah.

¶12

Mangal Yadav s/o late Yodha Yadav r/o village Chhawani, PO and PS and district Bettiah.

¶13

Jawahir Yadav s/o late Yodha Yadav r/o village Chhawani, PO and PS and district Bettiah.

¶14

Dilip Yadav s/o late Yodha Yadav r/o village Chhawani, PO and PS and district Bettiah.

¶15

Smt. Ramanti Devi d/o late Yodha Raut, w/o Chandrika yadav, r/o village chhavni, PO Bettiah, PS Bettiah, district west champaran.

¶16

Smt. Mera Devi d/o late Chandra Raut w/o late Ramashankar Yadav, r/o village chhavni, PO and PS and district west Champaran.

¶17

Most. Tara Devi w/o late Thag Yadav r/o village Mudila PS and PO Ram Nagar, district west Champaran.

¶18

Ram babu Yadav s/o late Thag Yadav r/o village Mudila, PS and PO Ram Nagar, district west Champaran.

¶19

Most Lilawati w/o late Bigu Yadav r/o village Mudila, PS and PO Ram Nagar, district west Champaran.

¶20

Mukesh Yadav s/o late Biga Yadav r/o village Mudila, at present r/o village Sonhar, PO and PS Ram Nagar, district west Champaran.

¶21

Brikishor Yadav s/o late Biga Yadav r/o village Mudila, at present r/o village Sonhar, PO and PS Ram Nagar, district west Champaran.

¶22

Most. Rambha Devi w/o Bijli Yadav r/o village Mudila, at present r/o village Sonhar, PO and PS Ram Nagar, district west Champaran.

¶23

Kedar Yadav s/o late Bijli Yadav r/o village Mudila, at present r/o village Sonhar, PO and PS Ram Nagar, district west Champaran.

¶24

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.306 of 2021(6) dt.09-10-2023 2/4

¶25

Sushil Yadav @ Pramod Yadav s/o late Bijli Yadav r/o village Mudila, at present r/o village Sonhar, PO and PS Ram Nagar, district west Champaran.

¶26

Dharmendra Yadav @ Shiv Prakash Sah s/o late Bijli Yadav r/o village Mudila, at present r/o village Sonhar, PO and PS Ram Nagar, district west Champaran.

¶27

... ... Respondent/s

¶28

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶29

6 09-10-2023

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶31

None appears for the respondents despite filing of

¶32

Vakalatnama .

¶33

This case was heard in the first half also and was passed over to be taken up in the second half.

¶34

By the impugned order, the Sub Judge- 1^st Bagaha, West Champaran in Title Suit No. 56 of 2014 has refused to grant permission to complete the construction of the house to the petitioner on undertaking that if the petitioner looses the case, he will hand over the property to the defendants.

¶35

The case of the petitioner is that Nanhak Ahir was the common ancestor of the parties and khatiyan regarding his land was prepared in his name. Nanhak Ahir died in the year 1970, leaving behind one son namely, Shiv Nandan Ahir and three daughters namely, Ghurl Devi, Ramdeiya Devi and Marchhi Devi and after his death, the entire property came in

¶36

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.306 of 2021(6) dt.09-10-2023 3/4

¶37

possession of his legal heirs. Chhathu Yadav, the great grandson of Nanhak Ahir died in the year 1983 leaving behind three sons and one daughter (defendant nos. 1 to 5). Ramdeiya Devi, mother of the plaintiff died on 15.12.1984 leaving behind four sons and one daughter. The plaintiff claims that all the properties are joint and there has been no partition by metes and bounds and cultivation is being done on the basis of convenience of the parties and some of the properties have been sold by the defendants. The suit was filed for partition.

¶38

The defendant appeared in the suit, filed his written statement and denied the case of the plaintiff and has stated that the plaintiff is the daughter of Ramdeiya Devi and she is not entitled to any share in the joint family property. Shiv Nandan Yadav died in the year 1950 leaving behind one son Chhathu and three daughters and as per the Hindu Succession Act, the daughters are not entitled for their share in property and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the property of Shri Nandan Ahir.

¶39

An application was filed for injunction on 22.05.2018 as the defendant was making construction over the land and was constructing the house. The prayer of the petitioner is that as the construction of the house in question was

¶40

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.306 of 2021(6) dt.09-10-2023 4/4

¶41

started by the defendant and the partition suit will take time for disposal, he may be allowed to make construction and will not claim any benefit of the construction and in case he looses in the suit and the suit property is allotted to the plaintiff, he will not object to the allotment to the same with the house to the plaintiff. The application has been dismissed by both the Courts.

¶42

In the aforesaid circumstances, in the interest of justice, it is directed that the Court below will conclude the Title Suit No. 56 of 2014 within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and if the same is not concluded within the next six months, then the petitioner will be allowed to complete the construction of the house.

¶43

Before proceeding with the construction after six months, the petitioner will furnish the necessary undertaking that he will not claim the house as per the result of the suit.

¶44

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this application is disposed of.

¶45

(Sandeep Kumar, J)

¶46

P. Kumar

¶47

Munna Yadav v. Rekha Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna Yadav v. Rekha Yadav

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

Pankaj Kumar Paswan Vs Savita Kumari

Shiv Shankar Gond Vs Sunita Devi

Kapildeo Thakur Vs Abhinay Kumar

Mrinal Kumar and Ors. Vs Gauri Shankar Singh and Ors.

Bhishm Deo Singh Vs Ram Chandra Singh and Ors.

Sushil Kumar Singh Vs Anil Kumar Singh