Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1166 (JHR)

Ram Narayan Prasad v. Satish Chandra Gupta

2002-11-20

M.Y.EQBAL

body2002
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 2.7.2002 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 227/95 whereby he has rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Section 192(1) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 2. Petitioners filed aforementioned application under Section 192(1) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short the said Act) against the opposite parties praying inter alia for holding inquiry and also for directing delivery of possession of the property left by the deceased Smt. Usha Gupta, which was alleged to have been forcibly taken by the opposite parties. 3. Petitioners case inter alia is that Smt. Usha Gupta, wife of petitioner No. 1 died on 10.6.1994 due to falling into the well. She left behind petitioner No. 1 her husband and petitioner No. 2 minor son and opposite party No. 4 major daughter. It is alleged by the petitioner that property left behind by the deceased were jointly acquired by petitioner No. 1 and the deceased. Opposite Party No. 1, 2 and 3 alleged to have been forcibly taken possession of the property from the petitioners. 4. The case of the opposite parties as stated in the show cause is that they have not taken any article left by the deceased who died in the house of the opposite parties. As a matter of fact, in 1981 petitioner No. 1 filed Divorce case against his deceased wife Usha Gupta making false allegation of theft of jewellery and some other articles against his wife. The Opposite parties totally denied each and every allegation made in the petition. 5. Learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner after considering the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that petitioners have failed to prove that property left by the deceased was forcibly taken possession by the opposite parties. The Court is also of the view that the Misc. case is not maintainable and the same is also barred by law of limitation. 6. Judicial Commissioner after considering the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that petitioners have failed to prove that property left by the deceased was forcibly taken possession by the opposite parties. The Court is also of the view that the Misc. case is not maintainable and the same is also barred by law of limitation. 6. The provision of Section 192 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 entitles a person claiming right by succession to property left by the deceased to make an application to the District Judge of the district where any part of the property is found or situate for relief of possession of the property if actually possession has been taken by another person, or where forcible means of seizing possession are apprehended. The said provisions can, however, to be invoked only when property of the deceased is in wrongful possession of some other persons. Section 192 to 194 of the said Act will not apply to a case where joint family property passes by survivorship. Summary remedy is provided under the aforesaid provisions which can be availed for possession of property when remedy under ordinary law will cause unnecessary delay and will not serve the purpose. In the instant case from the finding recorded by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, it appears that the allegation taking possession of the property by the opposite parties has been seriously denied and disputed by the opposite parties. Moreover, parties are at litigating terms for several years. In my opinion therefore, the Court below has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners seeking remedy under Section 192 of the said Act. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said order. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in this revision application, which is accordingly dismissed.