Jharkhand High Court
Mrityunjay Pandey And Others vs Man Mohan Upadhyay And Ors on 4 August, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 4 of 2000(P)
Mrityunjay Pandey and others ... ... Appellants
Versus
Man Mohan Upadhyay and Ors.
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Jai Prakash Jha, Senior Advocate
Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, Advocate
For the Intervener : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
---
28/4th August 2025
I.A. No. 5209 of 2021
1. This interlocutory application has been filed seeking
intervention in this second appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the intervener has referred to
Annexure-1 which is a family tree issued by the Circle Office and he
submits that the property involved in this case belonged to one
Shivsharan Pandey, who had two sons, namely, Sirtaj Pandey and
Ganpat Pandey and the intervener is the descendant of Ganpat Pandey.
He submits that one Mungia Devi descendant of Sirtaj Pandey had
died issueless and therefore the entire property would devolve upon
the intervener. He submits that the deed of adoption by Mungia Devi
is involved in the second appeal and therefore if the deed of adoption
is held to be valid, it will directly affect his right, title and interest over
the suit property.
3. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Kerala High Court reported in 2012 Supreme (Kerala) 678
and has submitted that there is no legal bar in allowing intervention
even at the 2nd appellate stage. The principles have been enumerated in
paragraph 8 of the aforesaid judgment.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the
respondents have opposed the prayer and have submitted that only
issue involved in this case is the legality and validity of adoption and
it is not title suit seeking right, title, interest and possession of one or
the other party. They submit that there is no suit property as such
involved in this case and therefore the intervener has no locus to
intervene.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court
finds that the suit was filed seeking a declaration that the defendant
No. 1 was not the adopted son of Most. Mungia widow of Sukhdeo
Upadhyay on 18.05.1978 or at any time and that he is not the adopted
son of Mungia Devi and that the adoption deed dated 27.05.1978 is
void, illegal, fraudulent and inoperative. The suit was decreed on
contest and the appeal was also dismissed.
6. So far as the intervener is concerned, he is claiming title over
some property by giving the aforesaid details. This Court is of the
considered view that the judgment and decree in connection with
adoption would only bind the parties to the suit and not bind any 3rd
party.
7. Further, so far as the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Kerala High Court is concerned, the same was only in relation to a
peculiar circumstance where the property of a society registered under
the Societies Registration Act, 1955 was involved and the parties were
seeking to compromise the matter. Paragraph 8 of the aforesaid
judgment dealing with the principles of addition of party at appellate
stage is quoted as under: -
"8. The views expressed by the High Courts of Calcutta,
Punjab and Andhra Pradesh appeal to me than the one
expressed by the High Court of Bombay in the decision
aforeqoted and the following principles can safely be deduced
therefore:
(i) The appellate court has inherent powers to permit
parties to be added to appeals in suitable cases.
(ii) Order XLI Rule 20 of the CPC is not exclusive or
exhaustive of the powers of the appellate court to add
parties.
(iii) The jurisdiction under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC
can be exercised by the appellate court by virtue of
Section 107 (2) of the CPC.
(iv) The impleadment must be to facilitate the determination
of the issues as between the original parties to the suit.
(v) It is only in exception circumstances can the power be
involved in appeal and never to implead total strangers
to the proceedings. "
8. This Court also finds that the Hon'ble Kerala High Court held
that in the said case, exceptional circumstances did exist to implead or
add the intervener in Regular Second Appeal whose endevour was to
oppose the compromise and to sustain the judgment of the 1st appellate
court and it was the specific case of the impleading petitioners that
they were not offered membership in the society even though they had
attained the age of 21 years and were residing within the Village. It
was also considered that the school was established by contribution
from public and its management was attempted to be cornered by a
few excluding the public.
9. In the present case, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid
judgment does not apply as no public element as such is involved and
considering the nature of dispute involved in this case this court is not
inclined to allow the intervention petition.
10. In view of the legal position that the judgment and decree binds
only the parties to the suit, I.A. No. 5209 of 2021 seeking intervention
is hereby dismissed.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
registered deed of adoption is involved in this case. He has referred to
section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 to
submit that once the adoption deed is registered, there is a
presumption attached to it. The learned counsel submits that the
burden is upon the person opposing the adoption to produce evidence
to the contrary.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted
that witnesses to the ceremony of adoption have also been produced
before the Court, but the reason for disbelieving the adoption is
primarily that non-santhali witness was not produced and therefore,
there is the 2nd substantial question of law. The learned counsel has
submitted that both the learned courts have committed error of
law/perversity while considering the materials on record particularly
the fact that deed of adoption was duly registered.
13. Learned senior counsel for the respondents prays for some time
to seek instructions from his client.
14. At the request of the learned senior counsel for the respondents,
the matter is directed to be posted on 18th August 2025 under the
heading "for Final Disposal".
15. It is made clear that no adjournment will be given on the next
date.
16. Office is directed to scan the records received from the
concerned courts.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pankaj/Mukul
