Patna High Court
Asha Devi & Ors vs Rama Nand Singh on 2 December, 2013
Equivalent citations: AIR 2014 PATNA 25
Author: V. Nath
Bench: V. Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
First Appeal No.310 of 1988
===========================================================
1. Asha Devi wife of late Ramjee Sah.
2. Mahendra Sah.
3. Bishuni alias Bishundeo Sah.
4. Baleshwar Sah alias Pathalwa Sah 2 to 4 sons of late Ramjee Sah.
5. Radha Devi alias Radhia Devi wife of Tinkumar Sah and daughter of late
Ramjee Sah, all residents of Monghyr, P.S. Monghyr, District-Monghyr.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
Rama Nand Singh son of late Deonarain Singh by occupation an advocate resident
of Mohalla Murgiachak, P.S. Kotwali within the town of Monghyr, district-
Monghyr.
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. B.N.Sahay
Mr. Jagdhar Prasad
Mr. S.B.Pathak
Mr. Shashi Nath Thakur
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhirendra Nath Jha
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 02-12-2013
No one appears on behalf of the appellants or the
respondent when this appeal has been called out for hearing.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and
decree dated 13.06.1988 by Sub Judge-V, Monghyr in T.S. No. 124
of 1985 by which the suit for declaration of title and confirmation of
possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession has been
dismissed.
The plaintiffs have filed the T.S. No. 124 of 1985 for the
Patna High Court FA No.310 of 1988 dt.02-12-2013
2
aforesaid reliefs against the defendant no. 1 who has been impleaded
as defendant 1st party. The defendant nos. 2 to 7 have been impleaded
as defendant 2nd party. From the perusal of the plaint, it transpires
that the plaintiffs have claimed their title over the suit lands as their
ancestral property and have come out with the case that the defendant
2nd party (defendant nos. 2 to 7) have got no title and possession over
the suit lands and the defendant 1st party has also not acquired valid
title and possession of the suit lands by his purchase from the
defendant 2nd party.
After the scrutiny of the pleadings and the evidence of
the parties, the learned court below has come to the finding that the
plaintiffs have not succeeded in establishing their title over the suit
lands and it has been further found that the defendant 1st party has
succeeded in proving his title over the suit property on the basis of
his purchase from the rightful owners.
This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs and in the
memo of appeal, the defendant no.1 and defendant nos. 2 to 7 have
been impleaded as respondents. It appears, however, from the order
dated 08.02.1996 that due to the failure of the appellants to take
steps for fresh service of appeal notice on respondent nos. 2 to 7, the
names of respondent nos. 2 to 7 had been deleted from the memo of
appeal. It does not appear from the records that thereafter the
Patna High Court FA No.310 of 1988 dt.02-12-2013
3
appellants took any steps for recall of the said order although they
have continued to pursue his appeal. Later on, by order dated
17.01.2013, the competency matter of this appeal in absence of respondent nos. 2 to 7 (defendant no. 2 to 7 in the suit) has been directed to be considered at the time of hearing of this appeal.
From the facts appearing from the pleadings of the parties as well as from the impugned judgment, it is clear that there is direct conflict of title over the suit lands between the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 2 to 7 as well as defendant no. 1 who has claimed the suit property through the defendant nos. 2 to 7 as their transferees. The learned court below in the impugned judgment has further also held that the plaintiffs have no title over the suit land and the defendant no. 1 has acquired valid title over the same through the sale deed from the defendant 2nd set who are the rightful owner of the suit property. In this view of the matter, the defendant nos. 2 to 7 are definitely necessary parties to this appeal which has become incompetent after the deletion of their names from the memo of appeal.
As such, this appeal is dismissed as incompetent.
(V. Nath, J) Devendra/-