Jharkhand High Court
Raj Kumar Burnwal vs Robin Roy on 7 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:10680
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 472 of 2023
1 Raj Kumar Burnwal, aged about 54 years, son of Sri Basant Lal Burnwal,
Resident of Chandra Kala Niwas Purandaha, P.O. B. Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar
(Town), District- Deoghar,
2. Manoj Kumar Burnwal, aged about 54 years, son of Sri Basudeo Lal
Burnwal, Resident of village- Suratilona, P.O. Satsang Nagar, P.S. Deoghar
(Town), District-Deoghar. .............Petitioners
Versus
1. Robin Roy, son of Dilip Kumar Ray, Resident of 30A, Shankari Tola, P.O. &
P.S. Muchi Para, Kolkata-14, (West Bengal).
2. Mittra Labanya Kar, wife of Tapan Kumar Kar and daughter of late Dilip
Kumar Roy, Resident of 162/D/620, Lake Garden, P.O. & P.S. Lake Garden
Kolkata-45 (West Bengal).
3(a) Smt Barnali Roy Wife of late Arun Kumar Roy
3(b) Deepayan Roy (minor) Son of Late Arun Kumar Roy,
Both residence of 30A, Shankari tola, P.O. & P.S. Muchi Para, Kolkata-14
(West Bengal).
3. Smt. Aarti Roy Chowdhary, Daughter of Late Kamla Prasad Roy, Resident of
"Roy Bunglow", at Aashram Keshan Aarogya Path, Near Baidyanath Dham
Railway Station, P.O. Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar (Town) District-Deoghar.
4. Dr. Bhaswati Konar, Wife of Sri Dev Prassono Konar, Resident of Radha
Nagar, South Road, P.O. & P.S. Radha Nagar, District- Burdwan, (West Bengal).
5(a). Pinaki Singho Roy S/o Late Ganesh Chandra Singho Roy and Priti Singho
Roy.
5(b) Smt Urmila Gopa Roy, Wife of Sri Tilak Prasad Roy, daughter of Ganesh
Chandra Singho Roy and Priti Singho Roy,
both are residents of 415-A, Block No.C, New Alipur, Kolkata-700 053, (W.B).
6. Munnam Sanjya, Son of Chandra Narayan Bajpain, Resident of Parmeshwar
Dayal Road, Barmasiya, P.O. Deoghar, District- Deoghar.
7. Roshan Kumar Singh, Son of Krishna Nandan Singh, Resident of
Dhawabad, P.O. Kukraha, P.S. Chitra, District- Deoghar.
8. Braj Mohan Singh, Son of Gopal Singh, Resident of House no. 14 near Birla
Maidan, Indrapuri, Road No. 9, Ratu Road, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar,
District-Ranchi.
9. Gopal Singh, Son of Bhaktimal Prasad Singh, Resident of Adharsh Colony,
Ranga More, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District- Deoghar,
10. Amarnath Tiberewal, Son of Sitaram Tekriwal, Resident of 69 Mufasil
Thana, P.O. Sarkand, P.S. Mufasil, District- Godda.
11. Vivek Mishra, Son of Nityanand Mishra, Resident of Roy Bunglow, Asharam
Keshan Road, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, District- Deoghar.
1
2025:JHHC:10680
12. Birju Nath Hansda, Son of Lather Hansda, Resident of village- Mohanpur,
P.O. & P.S. Bindapathar, District-Jamtara.
13. Saran Alcohol Private Limited through its Director Jogendra Tiwari, Son of
Rameshwar Tiwari, Resident of Station Road Mihijam, P.O. & P.S. Mihijam,
District-Jamtara.
14. Swastik Traders through its Director Sudip Kumar Dey, Son of Sunil Kumar
Dey, Resident of Bijpura North 129, Naihati, near Nana Hospital, Halisar, P.O.
Malancho, P.S. Beliyaghat, District- 24 Pargana (West Bengal).
15. Dhanwad Wines through its Director Shankar Singh, Son of Naresh Singh,
Resident of 67/03, Krishna Nagar Mihijam, P.O. & P.S. Mihijam, District-
Jamtara.
16. Anirudha Kumar Singh, Son of Late Arun Kumar Singh, Resident of
Rathore Villa, M.I.G., A/42 Housing Colony Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad,
district- Dhanbad. ...... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties :-
06/Dated: 07/04/2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 19.11.2022 passed in Misc.
Civil Application No. 70/2020 arising out of Original Suit No. 137 of 2019 by
learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-III, Deoghar whereby and whereunder the
petition dated 15.05.2020 filed on behalf of the intervener under Order I, Rule
10 read with Section 151 C.P.C was allowed by the learned court.
3. Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the said suit was instituted by the petitioners/plaintiffs being
Original Suit No. 137 of 2019 for declaration of their title and confirmation of
possession over the suit property described in schedule of the plaint. He
submits that pursuant to notice the defendants have appeared and filed their
written statement. He submits that there is no whisper of any sale of land
however the interveners were not made O.P. Nos. 6 to 16 in the said suit who
filed petition under Order 1, Rule 10 read with section 151 C.P.C. for
2
2025:JHHC:10680
impleading on the ground that the suit land has been sold by the heirs of the
defendant no.1 in favour of interveners. He submits that the learned court has
wrongly allowed the said petition in view of that the impugned order may kindly
be set aside.
4. It is an admitted position that the suit was instituted for declaration
of title and confirmation of possession over the suit property and the
interveners were not made defendants in the said suit which has compelled
them to file petition under Order I Rule 10 read with section 151 of C.P.C for
impleading them as party on the ground that the heirs of the defendant no.1
has sold the land in their favour and that petition has been allowed by the
learned court.
5. The Court finds that if such a situation is there the learned court
has not erred in allowing the said petition. It is discretion of the Court to allow
such petition at any stage and if the interveners are said to be purchasers
during pendency of the said suit, they are necessary party. The reference
made by made to the case of "Dhanlakshmi and others Vs. P. Mohan and
others reported in (2007) 10 SCC 719 wherein para 5 it has been held as
under:-
"Section 52 deals with a transfer of property pending suit. In the instant case,
the appellants have admittedly purchased the undivided shares of the
respondents nos.2,3,4 & 6. It is not in dispute that the first respondent P.
Mohan has got an undivided share in the said suit property. Because of the
purchase by the appellants of the undivided share in the suit property, the rights
of the first respondent herein in the suit or proceeding will not affect his right in
the suit property by enforcing a partition. Admittedly, the appellants, having
purchased the property from the other co-sharers, in our opinion, are entitled to
come on record in order to work out the equity in their favour in the final decree
proceedings. In our opinion, the appellants are necessary and proper parties to
the suit, which is now pending before the Trial Court. We also make it clear that
we are not concerned with the other suit filed by the mortgagee in these
proceedings."
6. In view of above so far the facts of the present case is concerned,
the interveners are said to be the purchaser of the suit property and the prayer
in the suit is made for declaration of right, title and interest and in view of that
2025:JHHC:10680
one has to look into Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. However
transfer by registered deed is there and in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court judgment in the case of "Dhanlakshmi (supra) which has been
allowed considering that the property purchased by purchasers from the other
co-sharers are entitled to come on the record in order to work out the equity in
their favour in the final decree proceedings and in that also at the final decree
proceeding the said prayer was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. However, so far the present case is concerned, interveners have
filed the petition and final decree stage has not come.
8. In view of above there is no illegality in the impugned order
accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed..
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/A.F.R.
