Disposed¶23

Mukti Mandal v. Siyaram Mandal

Patna HC15 Dec 2025FA/498/1976

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compromise decree under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC; 1976 first appeal against Sub-Judge, Samastipur decree in Partition Suit No. 84 of 1972 (plaintiffs held entitled to 1/3 share); legal heirs substituted after death of original parties; appeal disposed of in terms of compromise partitioning suit land under Schedules A, B and C; fresh decree directed; impugned judgment and decree to have no effect; Patna High Court; decided 15-12-2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of in terms of the compromise between the legal heirs; I.A. No. 02 of 2025 allowed; office directed to prepare a fresh decree in light of the compromise, after preparation of which the impugned judgment and decree shall have no effect. ¶23

Mukti Mandal Vs Siyaram Mandal — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal should be decided in the light of the compromise arrived at between the appellants and the respondents (legal heirs of the original parties), as prayed in the joint application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC.

¶12

Court's answer

The legal heirs of the original plaintiffs and defendants settled their dispute by partitioning the suit land among themselves, and none of the legal heirs of the deceased parties was excluded in the compromise; the Court therefore found no reason to disbelieve the compromise.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The prayer made by both parties in the interlocutory application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC is accepted, and the appeal stands decided in terms of the said compromise.

¶20

Key takeaways

The office is directed to prepare a fresh decree in the light of the compromise arrived at between both the parties.ratio¶22
Upon preparation of the fresh decree, the decree and judgment impugned in this appeal shall have no effect, and I.A. No. 02 of 2025 stands allowed.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Shailendra Singh, J.) disposed of First Appeal No.498 of 1976, which challenged the judgment dated 06.05.1976 and decree prepared on 25.05.1976 of the learned Sub-Judge, Samastipur in Partition Suit No. 84 of 1972 ('Siya Ram Mandal and Others vs. Mukti Mandal and Others'), whereby the plaintiffs were held entitled to a 1/3 share of the suit property. During the pendency of the appeal the original parties died and their legal heirs were substituted. On a joint interlocutory application (I.A. No. 02 of 2025) under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, supported by affidavits, the legal heirs — Ram Shobhit Mandal, Kashi Mandal and Bachcha Mandal (appellants) and Umesh Mandal and Dinesh Mandal (respondents) — placed on record a compromise allotting the suit property under Schedules 'A', 'B' and 'C', with no legal heir of the deceased parties excluded. The Court accepted the compromise, decided the appeal in its terms, directed the office to prepare a fresh decree, and held that upon such preparation the impugned judgment and decree would have no effect.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA FIRST APPEAL No.498 of 1976

¶2

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

¶3

Kashi Mandal Son of Thakko Mandal, Resident of Village Saharu Madhopure, Pergana Jokhalpur, Police Station Rosera, District Samastipur.

¶4

Ram Sobhit Mandal Son of Mukti Mandal, Resident of Village Saharu Madhopure, Pergana Jokhalpur, Police Station Rosera, District Samastipur.

¶5

Bachcha Mandal Son of Kashi Mandal, Resident of Village Saharu Madhopure, Pergana Jokhalpur, Police Station Rosera, District Samastipur.

¶6

... ... Appellant/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

Umesh Mandal Son of Siyaram Mandal, Resident of Village Saharu Madhopure, Pergana Jokhalpur, Police Station Rosera, District Samastipur.

¶9

Dinesh Mandal Son of Siyaram Mandal, Resident of Village Saharu Madhopure, Pergana Jokhalpur, Police Station Rosera, District Samastipur.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Arghesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ram Shankar Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jagdish Prasad, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶11

37 15-12-2025 Re :- I.A. No. 02 of 2025

¶12

The instant interlocutory application has been filed by the appellants and the respondents jointly under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) with a prayer to decide this appeal in the light of the compromise arrived at in between both the parties.

¶13

2. Mr. Ram Shankar Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the partition suit bearing No. 84 of 1972 titled ‘Siya Ram Mandal and Others vs. Mukti Mandal and Others’, was filed for partition of the suit

¶14

Patna High Court FA No.498 of 1976(37) dt.15-12-2025 2/4

¶15

land and that was decided by the court of learned Sub-Judge, Samastipur, holding therein that the plaintiffs (respondents here) are entitled to get 1/3 share of the suit property and that judgment was passed on 06.05.1976 and accordingly, decree was prepared on 25.05.1976. That judgment and decree was challenged before this Court by way of this appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, the original plaintiffs (here, respondents) and the original defendants (here appellants) died and thereafter, their legal heirs were substituted, who are present appellants and defendants in this appeal and in between them, a good relation has been restored.

¶16

2.1. It is further submitted that at present, Ram Shobhit Mandal S/o- Late Mukti Mandal, Kashi Mandal S/o Thakko Mandal and Bachcha Mandal @ Krishna Mohan Mandal S/o- Kashi Mandal, are appellants whereas Umesh Mandal and Dinesh Mandal both S/o- Siyaram Mandal, are respondents in the present appeal and as per the terms and conditions of the said compromise, the suit property detailed in Schedule ‘A’ to this I.A. has been allotted to Ram Shobhit Mandal @ Ram Shobhit Singh @ Ram Shobhit Mandal S/o Late Mukti Mandal @ Late Mukti Prasad Singh and the suit property detailed in Schedule ‘B’ has been allotted to Kashi Mandar @

¶17

Patna High Court FA No.498 of 1976(37) dt.15-12-2025 3/4

¶18

Kashi Mandal S/o Late Thakko Mandal (Mandar) and Bachcha Mandar @ Krishna Mohan Prasad @ Krishna Mohan Prasad Singh S/o Kashi Mandar whereas the suit property detailed in Schedule ‘C’ has been allotted to Umesh Prasad Singh @ Umesh Mandar and Dinesh Mandar @ Dinesh Kumar Singh both sons of Late Siya Ram Mandar @ Siya Ram Mandal and these Schedules (A, B,C) are attached with this application. Each and every page of the Schedules has been signed by all the parties and the compromise petition has also been signed by all the parties, supported with the affidavits of all the parties.

¶19

3. Mr. Jagdish Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents accepts the aforesaid submissions.

¶20

4. After having heard both the sides and having perused this interlocutory application and gone through the averments made in this application, this Court has no reason to disbelieve the said compromise as according to both the parties, who are legal heirs of the original plaintiffs and defendants, they have settled their dispute by partitioning the suit land among them and none of the legal heirs of the deceased parties has been excluded in the said compromise. Accordingly, the prayer made by both the parties in this interlocutory application under Order 23 Rule 3 is hereby accepted and in terms of the said

¶21

Patna High Court FA No.498 of 1976(37) dt.15-12-2025 4/4

¶22

compromise, the instant appeal stands decided and the office is directed to prepare a fresh decree in the light of the compromise arrived at in between both the parties and after the preparation of the same, the decree and judgment impugned in this appeal shall have no effect. Accordingly, I.A. No. 02 of 2025 stands allowed.

¶23

5. In the result, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

¶24

(Shailendra Singh, J)

¶25

annu/-

¶26

Mukti Mandal v. Siyaram Mandal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukti Mandal v. Siyaram Mandal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Premchand Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Bablu singh Vs The State of Bihar

Shashikant Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Lal Babu Roy Vs Ram Kumar Roy

Panna Lal Sah @ Manna Lal Sah Vs Ramnaryan Sah @ Bhutiharwa Sah

Dr. Ganesh Lal Sinha @ Ganesh Lal Sinha Vs The State of Bihar