Jharkhand High Court
Baby Agarwal vs Bhuneshwari Devi And Ors on 29 August, 2016
Equivalent citations: 2017 AJR 799, (2016) 168 ALLINDCAS 466 (JHA) (2017) 1 JCR 331 (JHA), (2017) 1 JCR 331 (JHA)
Author: R.N. Verma
Bench: Ravi Nath Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4339 of 2012
Baby Agarwal
Daughter of Late Gupteshwar Prasad Agarwal, resident of village
Rampur, PO & PS- Pratappur, District- Chatra
.... Intervenor-Petitioner
--Versus--
1. Bhuneshwari Devi wife of Radheshyam Agarwal,
Resident of village, PO & PS Pratappur, District- Chatra
.....Plaintiff/Respondent
2. Sohita Nand Prasad Agarwal
3. Arun Agarwal
4. Abhay Agarwal, all sons of late Gupteshwar Agarwal
5. Ashok Agarwal, son of Janardhan Prasad Agarwal
6. Ghoter Agarwal, son of Janardhan Prasad Agarwal
7. Nemichand Agarwal, son of Krishna Chandra Agarwal
8. Radheshyam Agarwal, son of Late Gulab Sao
9. Rajiv Agarwal, son of Radheshyam Agarwal
10. Sanjay Agarwal, son of Radheshyam Agarwal
11. Umeshankar Agarwal, son of Late Gulab Sao
12. Bablu Agarwal, son of Umeshankar Agarwal
13. Chandan Agarwal , son of Umeshankar Agarwal
14. Chanchal Agarwal, son of Umeshankar Agarwal
All residents of village Pratappur, PO & PS Pratappur, District-
Chatra, Sl. No. 2 of village Rampur, PO &PS- Kunda, District- Chatra
.... Defendant- Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA
For the petitioner :- Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents :- Mr. J.N.Upadhyay, Advocate
C.A.V. on- 09.08.2016 PRONOUNCED ON- 29.08.2016
Invoking the Supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Intervenor-petitioner has
questioned the legality of the order dated 07.06.2012 passed by the
learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-II, Chatra whereby and
whereunder the intervenor-petition filed by the petitioner with
prayer to allow her to join as a defendant in the suit has been
rejected.
2. The facts, which is relevant for the proper adjudication of
the issue involved in this petition, in short, is that the respondent
no.1- Bhuneshwari Devi filed a Title Suit No. 03 of 2009 for
rectification of the sale deed no. 1856 dated 11.05.1987 by inserting
2
C.S. Plot no. 166 in place of C.S. Plot no. 21 as per the boundary given
in the sale deed and for decree of permanent injunction directing the
defendants, their servants, agents or any other in their behalf to
abstain from putting disturbance in peaceful possession of the
plaintiff over the suit land and it was pleaded in the plaint that the
land in question appertaining to C.S. Plot no. 166 under C.S. Khata
no. 64 measuring an area one acre situated at village Kasmar,
District- Chatra was owned and possessed by the vendor of the
plaintiff Chandramani Kuer, who had acquired the same through
Sada Hukmnama from the ex-landlord in the year 1948 and since
after the settlement, the vendor of the plaintiff had been coming in
the possession over the land and the name of the vendor was entered
into the State revenue Sarishta. On 11.05.1987, the plaintiff purchased
the suit land through registered sale deed from the vendor
Mosammat Chandramani Kuer on payment of consideration amount
and since the date of purchase, she became the absolute owner and
has been coming in peaceful cultivating possession according to the
boundary of the purchased land. The plaintiff, thereafter, filed a
petition for mutation wherein a report was called by Anchal Adhikari
and the name of the plaintiff was accordingly entered into the
Demand Register i.e. Register no.-II and government rent receipt was
also issued. During the lifetime of the said vendor, Chandramani
Kuer, the defendants, who are her legal heirs, never raised any
objection but after her death, the defendants started disturbing the
possession of the plaintiff and later on, when he obtained a copy of
the sale deed came to know that C.S. Plot number was wrongly
mentioned as 21 in the sale deed in place of C.S. plot no. 166. Hence,
this suit.
3. Upon notice, the defendants appeared in the suit and
filed their written statement pleading therein that Gulab Chand Sao,
who was their ancestor, had acquired land in the name of his wife
namely Chandramani Kuer by virtue of Hukumnama dated
21.10.1941but it was not the exclusive property of Chandramani 3 Kuer and the suit plot is a part and parcel of 5.76 acres of land, which is joint possession of heirs of Chandramani Kuer and the present plaintiff and defendant no. 9 by practicing fraud upon Chandramani Kuer got a fake and bogus sale deed, which has never been acted upon and after the death of Chandramani Kuer and Gulab Chand Sao, his five sons came in possession of the entire property including the suit land of C.S. Khata no. 64.
4. During pendency of the suit, one Baby Agarwal-the present petitioner, filed an intervenor petition claiming herself to be the daughter of Gupteshwar Agarwal, one of the son of Chandramani Kuer and prayed to allow her to join as defendant in the suit on the ground that she is the sister of defendant nos. 1 to 3 and while she was minor, in spite of her protest, her grandmother forcibly solemnized her marriage against her will. But after the amendment in Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act in the year 2005, she is also a share-holder in the ancestral property similar to her three brothers. She has also stated that after the death of Gulab Chand Sao, his descendants separated in mess and residence but the property including the suit land continued in their joint possession. As such, she is a necessary party for the proper adjudication of the suit.
5. Rejoinder to the said intervenor petition was filed by the plaintiff and also by defendant nos. 1,2, 12 and 15.
6. Though the defendants in their rejoinder have admitted the fact that Baby Agarwal- the intervenor is the youngest daughter of late Gupteshwar Prasad Agarwal, one of the son of Gulab Chand Sao but the said Gupteshwar Prasad Agarwal during his lifetime had performed the marriage of all his four daughters and they are living in their sasural and due to some pressure by the present intervenor, Gupteshwar Prasad Agarwal during his lifetime had transferred 0.20 acre land out of 0.86 acre of his share to the intervenor Baby Agarwal through registered sale deed. So, the intervenor has now no right to intervene in the suit.
47. The court below after hearing the parties rejected the intervenor petition as indicated above. Hence, this writ.
8. Learned counsel Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma appearing for the intervenor-petitioner assailing the order impugned as bad in law and perverse, seriously contended that the court below erred in not considering the amendment in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, which came in force in the year 2005, which provides a parity of rights in the co-parcenary property among the male and female members in the Joint Hindu Family on and from 09.09.2005 and because of non-consideration of the said amendment, the order impugned cannot sustain in the eye of law and that the petitioner is a necessary party for the proper adjudication of the issue involved in the suit. It was also contended that the court below while rejecting the application of the petitioner erred in holding that if the petitioner has any grievance and any claim in the ancestral property of Chandramani Kuer, she can file a separate suit claiming her share and in the present suit, the grievance of the petitioner cannot be adjudicated upon.
9. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel representing the respondent no.1-plaintiff supported the order impugned and contended that the claim of the intervenor for her share in the ancestral property of Chandramani Kuer cannot be adjudicated in the present suit and as such she is not a necessary party. It was also contended that the present suit has been filed for a limited purpose of rectification of C.S. plot number, which has been wrongly mentioned in the sale deed in question.
10. I have gone through the plaint and written statement, which are enclosed with this writ application as well as the rejoinder filed by the defendant-respondents and I find that the suit in question has been filed for rectification of the plot number, which has been wrongly mentioned in the sale deed in question and besides that, there is only one prayer, which relates to grant of temporary injunction against the defendants but the intervenor-petitioner in the 5 garb of intervenor-petition claims her share in the entire ancestral property of Gulab Chand Sao, which was settled in the name of Chandramani Kuer his wife. The court below has rightly appreciated the fact that it is not a partition suit in which the presence of intervenor is necessary rather it is a simple suit for rectification of plot number, which is wrongly mentioned in the sale deed and if the intervenor has any grievance or claim of her share in the ancestral property of Gulab Chand Sao or Chandramani Kuer, she can file a partition suit. Apparently no issue regarding the share of defendants shall be framed in the suit in question or any issue relating to the partition, in my opinion, the intervenor is not a necessary party or even a proper party for deciding the suit in question.
11. In the circumstances discussed above and considering the fact that the share of intervenor or her right cannot be decided in the instant suit, in my opinion, she is neither a necessary party nor a proper party. The court below has rightly rejected the intervenor petition of the petitioner. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order impugned to interfere under the supervisory power of this Court.
12. Accordingly, this writ application, being devoid of any merit, is, hereby, dismissed.
(R.N. Verma, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 29th August, 2016 Ritesh/N.A.F.R.