DEVENDRA PRASAD SAH Vs. SATYA NARAYAN PRAKASH SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dtd. 14/12/2018, passed by learned Sub-Judge-III, Begusarai in Title Suit No. 286/2008, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has dismissed the intervenor petition of the petitioner, apart from other relief (s).

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 entered into an agreement with the agreement, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 executed a sale deed on 29/9/2018 in favour of respondent no.4. But the registration receipt was to be handed over subject to payment of consideration money by the respondent no.4 to respondent nos. 1 and 2 within a week. As the payment was not made as per the agreement and even till 15/10/2008, despite several demands and even after service of legal notice, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 cancelled the sale deed dtd. 29/8/2018 and executed cancellation deed dtd. 8/11/2008 which was accepted by the Sub-Registrar, Begusarai. As the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were in urgent need of money, they approached the petitioner to sell their land and matter was finalized. The wife of the petitioner, namely Veena Devi, expunged respondent no.3, purchased the suit land and house of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 on payment of full consideration money on 15/11/2008 vide sale deed nos. 22314 and 789435 dtd. 15/11/2008. After purchasing the property from the respondent nos. 1 and 2, full possession was handed over to Veena Devi, who came in peaceful possession of the land and the house. Thereafter, respondent no.4 filed Title Suit No.286/2008 seeking declaration of title and delivery of possession with respect to land of Tauzi No.4012, Thana No.389, Khata No.275, Khesra No.790 measuring an area of 12 dhoor situated at Mauza-Miyanchak Ratanpur, Ward No.17, Pergana-Malki, Sub-Division- Begusarai, Anchal and DistrictBegusarai as described in Schedule-1 of the plaint. It has been claimed that Khesra No.790 is the ancestral property and the names of Darshan Sahu, Dhanichand Sahu and Ranjit Sahu were entered in the cadestral survey and all the properties of the recorded tenants still existed. It further appears that the petitioner and the respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are defendants in the suit, are descendants of common ancestor Ranjit Sahu, who died leaving behind his title and interest to his heirs/legal representatives Dhunman Kumari and his two sons Brij Lal Sahu and Reet Lal Sahu. The petitioner is descendant of Brij Lal Sahu, whereas the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are the descendants of Reet Lal Sahu. The suit land came into possession of the heirs/legal representatives of Brij Lal Sahu and Reet Lal Sahu by way of succession and survivor-ship. Since the total area of Khesra No. 790 was 6 Katha and 9 Dhoor, both the branches got half share each along with old building. The plaintiff/respondent no.4 has filed a suit for declaration of title over an area of 12 Dhoor of Khesra No.790, however, it is claimed it was never allotted to defendant nos. 1 and 2/ respondent nos. 1 and 2 and they have no title and interest over the said area of land. It further appears that the intervenor-petitioner claims title and possession over an area of more than 2 Katha, which is part of Khesra No.790 along with the share in purchased land of his ancestor. Earlier, the expunged respondent no.3 Veena Devi filed intervenor petition for adding her as party defendant in Title Suit No.286/2008 and her intervenor petition was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.2500.00 on 6/4/2013 by the learned Sub Judge-VI, Begusarai. The said Veena Devi filed a petition to waive the cost of Rs.2500.00, but her application was rejected vide order dtd. 22/11/2013 by the learned Sub JudgeVI, Begusarai. Against such rejection order, the said Veena Devi filed CWJC No.10977 of 2014, which was heard and dismissed by this Court vide order dtd. 23/2/2016. The said Veena Devi did not deposit a cost of Rs.2500.00 in terms of order dtd. 6/4/2013. The petitioner, coming to know about filing of the title suit by Manju Devi for declaration of tile and delivery of possession regarding the land of Khesra No.790, filed intervenor petition for adding him as a defendant in the said title suit. The learned Sub Judge-III, Begusarai heard and dismissed the intervenor petition of the petitioner vide order dtd. 14/12/2008, which has been challenged in the present civil misc. petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Sub Judge-III, Begusarai is bad in the eyes of law and wrong on facts. The order is illegal and arbitrary and has been passed without considering of the documents available on record. The learned trial court has failed to consider the fact that the petitioner has a vested right as he is tenant and half sharer of Khesra No.790 having share of more than 2 Katha of land and he is in peaceful possession over the land and building of Khesra No.790 and, as such, he is necessary party in Title Suit No.286/2008. The learned trial court has further failed to consider that the petitioner is descendant of Brij Lal Sah, the co-sharer of ancestor of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and, in this manner, the petitioner has right, title and possession over an area of more than 2 Katha of land, a portion of Khesra No.790. The petitioner has also field Title Suit No.51/2004 in the court of learned Munsif, Begusarai for declaration of title and delivery of possession. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial court did not consider the case in its true perspective that the wife of the petitioner is purchaser of the said land from the respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are the real owners of the said land. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is fit to be set aside.