LAWS(PAT)-2023-1-4

TARKESHWAR PANDEY Vs. SAHABUDDIN ANSARI

Decided On January 11, 2023
TARKESHWAR PANDEY Appellant
V/S
Sahabuddin Ansari Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed challenging the order dtd. 12/3/2018 passed by learned Sub-ordinate Judge XII, Siwan in Title Suit No. 110 of 2013 whereby the amend-ment petition of the petitioner filed in the counter claim has been rejected.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that Title Suit No. 110 of 2013 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent 5th set in the court of Subordinate Judge-1st, Siwan for declaration that the disputed property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendant 1st set and defendant 2nd set have no concern with the property in dispute along with other reliefs. The defendants appeared and filed collusive written statement inasmuch as according to the petitioner the suit filed by the plaintiff -respondent 5th set was collusive in nature. When the petitioner came to know about the filing of the suit he immediately filed an application for adding him as party defendant in the suit in which he succeeded and was allowed to be impleaded as defendant no. 5 in the suit.

(3.) The petitioner / defendant no. 5 filed contesting written statement and also filed his counter claim on 27/4/2015 pray-ing therein to declare his title and possession over Schedule- 1 land described in the counter claim and also to hold that the plaintiff as well as defendant nos. 1-4 have no concern with the property in dispute. It has also been prayed to declare that the sale deed dtd. 13/9/1940 executed by Most. Bahora Kuer in favour of Kitabuddin and also the sale deed dtd. 7/3/2011 executed by Haider Ali in favour of the plaintiff and defendant 1st set as void, illegal, inoperative etc. It has also been prayed in the counter claim to declare that the sale deed dtd. 15/2/2011 executed by Riyazuddin Ansari as power of attorney holder in favour of Haider Ali as void, illegal, inoperative and subsequent sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1-4 be also declared as void and illegal and not binding upon the defendant no. 5 / petitioner.