Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 565 (PAT)

Jag Narain Singh v. Mathura Prasad Singh

1999-07-07

SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR

body1999
Judgment Sudhir Kumar Katriar, J. 1. This civil revision application is directed against the order dated 26.9.1995. passed by learned munsif, Sadar, Sitamarthi. in Partition Suit no.131 of 1992 Mathura Prasad Singh V/s. Shyam Narayan Singh, whereby the petitioners application under Order XXII, Rule 5. of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading maha Sinha @ Mahadevi Sinha. as a party defendant in the suit, has been rejected. 2. The petitioner is defendant No.3 in the partition suit. It is the common case of the parties that they are children of Basudeo Singh. Basudeo Singh died during the pendency of the suit on 7.8.1993, and then the question of substitution of his heirs arose. It is also common case of the parties that Basudeo Singh had again married after the death of his first wife. The present petitioner is from the first wife, and the opposite parties are from the second wife. After the death of the aforesaid basudeo, Singh, the present petitioner had filed an application under Order XXII, Rule 5 CPC for bringing Maha Sinha on record. His case is that he and Maha Sinha are full brother and sister from one mother. This prayer was objected to by the opposite parties-herein on the ground that Maha Sinha is not the full sister of the petitioner herein. She is the daughter of one Ram Swaroop Singh who figures in another line of the genealogical table of the family. Since the properties of Basudeo Singh are sought to be partitioned in the present suit, there is no occasion to bring on record Maha sinha. The aforesaid application to bring Maha sinha on record has been rejected by the Trial court by the impugned order. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the question whether or not Maha Sinha is the full sister of the petitioner herein i. e. , daughter of Late Basudeo singh, is an issue which will have to be decided at the hearing of the suit. In his submission, law is well settled that all necessary parties should be brought on record for effective adjudication of the issues raised in the suit. 4. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted in support of the impugned order that only one house situated at Sitamarhi is the subject-matter of the partition suit. In his submission, law is well settled that all necessary parties should be brought on record for effective adjudication of the issues raised in the suit. 4. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted in support of the impugned order that only one house situated at Sitamarhi is the subject-matter of the partition suit. Basudeo Singh had hmself stated in the written statement in the present suit that he has only four sons. Counsel further submitted that one Rameshwar Singh, an agnate of the parties, has instituted Partition Suit No.24 of 1983 which is currently pending in the Court of Sub-Judge, II, Saran, at Chapra, wherein just the same question had arisen for consideration of the learned Sub Judge, who declined to implead, Maha Sinha as a party defendant in that suit on the ground that she is not daughter of Late Sri Basudeo Singh. He also placed reliance in support of his contention on a judgment of this court in Nawal Kishore Dhaval v. Shree Thakur. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid order of the learned Sub-Judge in Partition Suit No.24 of 1983, refusing to implead Maha Sinha as party of defendant in the suit, was challenged in this court in C. R. No.1424 of 1995, but the same has been dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order of this Court, and not on merits. Therefore, it would be incorrect to state that the aforesaid order in Partition Suit No.24 of 1983 has been upheld by this Court. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that this civil revision application has to be allowed. It is well-settled that effort has to be made to bring on record all the necessary parties and/or proper parties for effective adjudication of the issues raised in the suit. The question whether or not Maha sinha is the daughter of Late Basudeo Singh shall be gone into at the time of hearing of the suit. Substitution of Maha Sinha and impleading her as a defendant in the suit does not by itself mean that she is the daughter of Basudeo singh. The Trial Court is directed to frame a specific issue in this behalf and adjudicate the same. 7. Substitution of Maha Sinha and impleading her as a defendant in the suit does not by itself mean that she is the daughter of Basudeo singh. The Trial Court is directed to frame a specific issue in this behalf and adjudicate the same. 7. In the result, this revision application is allowed, the impugned order dated 26.9.1995 passed by the learned Munsif, sadar, Sitamarhi, in Partition Suit No.131 of 1992, is hereby set aside. The Trial Court is directed to implead Maha Sinha as a party defendant in the suit with the direction that her status, whether or not she is the daughter of Basudeo Singh, will have to be adjudicated in the suit at the time of final hearing after framing a specific issue in that behalf. Revision allowed.