RAMVARAN SAH @ BHAGLU SAH Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Misc. Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner for setting aside the order dtd. 17/10/2019 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Sitamarhi in Partition Suit No. 442 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court rejected the petition dtd. 8/2/2016 filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1793 of 2019 dt.16/7/2024 the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for impleadment of the petitioner as intervenor in the aforesaid partition suit.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the parties as it appears from the record is that the respondents are plaintiffs before the learned trial court and they have filed Partition Suit No. 442 of 2015 for partition of land having khata no. 448, plot no. 2828, area 53 decimal of Village-Parari, Thana No. 286, PS and District-Sitamarhi apart from other lands. Khata no. 448, Plot no. 2828, area 98 decimal of Village-Parari is recorded in the name of petitioner Ramvaran Sah @ Bhaglu Sah. The father of the petitioner namely, Ramdayal Sah died intestate in the year 1958, leaving behind the petitioner, his son, and one daughter, namely Sharda Sahu. An oral partition took place between the petitioner and his sister and separate allotments were made to them. The land allotted in share of Sharda Sahu came to be recorded in the record of right under Khata No. 562 and 563, respectively. On 7/2/2016, the petitioner came to know that his khatiyani lands were being partitioned by the plaintiffs and defendants of Partition Suit No. 442 of 2015. Thereafter, the petitioner filed intervention application under Order-I, Rule 10(2) of the Code for impleading him as party to the suit. The Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1793 of 2019 dt.16/7/2024 plaintiffs filed rejoinder to the petition claiming therein that they have purchased 01 Bigha 13 Kathas and 03 Dhurs of land from Sharda Devi wife of Janki Sah through registered sale deed no. 1163 dtd. 26/3/1965 and sale deed no. 13405 dtd. 31/7/1967, respectively. The learned trial court rejected the intervention petition of the petitioner vide order dtd. 17/10/2019. The said order has been challenged in the present case.

(3.) Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order of the learned trial court is not sustainable and it is an erroneous order passed on wrong appreciation of facts. The learned trial court without any material on record made an observation that father of one Muktinath Yadav had moved an application earlier for impleadment, which was rejected on merit and thereafter, the son also filed another application on 10/8/2016, who has now managed Bhaglu Sah, the descendant of khatiyani raiyat, and got filed an application for impleadment. Now, this observation is completely without any basis. Furthermore, there has been no challenge by the plaintiffs that khata No. 319, plot no. 2828 and Thana no. 286 is not recorded in the name of petitioner neither the plaintiffs have denied the fact that the petitioner is the son of Ram Dayal Sah. Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1793 of 2019 dt.16/7/2024 The petitioner has filed a certified copy of khatiyan through list of document on 16/8/2019, still the learned trial court made an observation that petitioner has not filed any chit of paper in support of his case. Learned counsel further submits that sale- deed no. 13405 dtd. 31/7/1967 purported to have been executed by Sharda Devi shows that khata number mentioned therein is old 102 and new khata no. 448 is only for 11 kathas of land, which has been transferred and it is less than the land claimed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and defendants are in collusion with each other and want to grab the land of the petitioner on the basis of fake, forged and invalid documents. The learned trial court ought to have allowed the petitioner an opportunity to contest the claim of the plaintiffs and defendants with respect to 53 decimal land of plot no. 2828 under khata no. 319 as the same belongs to this petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the observation of learned trial court on petition filed on behalf of the petitioner is baseless and without any reason and is otherwise bad in law as well as on facts. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is completely silent as to whether the petitioner is a necessary or proper party. There is no discussion on this point. Learned counsel further submitted that this High Court in a number of Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1793 of 2019 dt.16/7/2024 decisions has held that subject to limitation and bonafide of the parties etc., the court could normally allow the application for impleadment, if such person is found to be a proper party. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the learned trial court overlooking the material facts that the petitioner has interest in the suit proper and he is not only a 'proper' but also a 'necessary' party and if any final judgment is passed in future in absence of the petitioner, it will affect the right, title and possession of the petitioner which would cause irreparable loss to him and at the same time compel him to file another suit for enforcing his right leading to multiplicity of litigation. Hence, the order impugned is erroneous and needs interference by this Court.