Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 377 (PAT)

Satyendra Prasad v. Umesh Prasad @ Umesh Prasad

2012-03-01

SHIVAJI PANDEY

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 2. The intervenor petitioners have challenged the order dated 2nd August 2011 by which the court below refused the to impaled as party in Title Suit (Partition) No. 10/11/160/05. 3. The intervenor petitioners are claiming their lineage from Munshi Mahto. Munshi Mahto had five sons, namely, Ram Prasad, Subbu Mahto, Sheonath Mahto, Parmeshwar Mahto and Raghu Mahto. Ram Prasad was the eldest son having four sons and one daughter, namely, Umesh Kumar, Madhup Kumar, Anil Kumar, Santosh Kumar and daughters Srimati Devi and Rinha Devi. It appears from the record that there are some purchases by Ram Prasad during the period 1964, 1965. Umesh Kumar son of Ram Prasad filed Title suit against his brother Madhup Kumar, Anil Kumar, Santosh Kumar. The intervenor petitioners are claiming that the land in dispute was purchased as joint family property by Ram Prasad and they do have a right over the said property and on the basis of their claim they have filed an application to be impeded them as party to the suit. The court below refused to implead them as party which is under challenge. 4. It is admitted fact that the petitioners and the respondents are belonging to the same family and are ancestors of Munshi Mahto. From the affidavit filed by Umesh Prasad, he has given his age as 56 years and, as such, on the day of purchase, his age cannot be more than 15 years. 5. From the recitals of the sale-deed it tentatively appear that they were purchased from the joint fund but the respondents are claiming that the fund was arranged by Ram Prasad himself with the help of his in-laws and it was completely self acquired property. 6. This Court is not deciding the status of the property but looking to the nature of dispute, it is always desirable that the petitioner should also be impleaded as party so that there should not be any piece meal litigation rather all the disputes be settled down for ever. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the judgment reported in 2006(4) PLJR 64 on the proposition that if the petitioners wants to implead a party, he will have to show that he was a necessary party to the litigation. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the judgment reported in 2006(4) PLJR 64 on the proposition that if the petitioners wants to implead a party, he will have to show that he was a necessary party to the litigation. It appears from the nature of dispute and the recitals in the sale-deed that it cannot be said that the petitioners cannot be impleaded as party. I am not deciding any issue on merit, but looking to the dispute and their family relationship, they certainly be added as a party. However, as stated hereinabove, his Court is not giving any opinion about the status of the property. The court below will decide the suit on its own merits. 8. With the observations and directions as above, the order impugned is quashed and the petition impleading petitioners is allowed.