Ratan Lal Sahu vs Smt.Sushma Devi
2025 Latest Caselaw 2909 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ratan Lal Sahu vs Smt.Sushma Devi on 27 February, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              M.A. No. 173 of 2014
 Ratan Lal Sahu, S/o Late Ramchandra Sahu, R/o Murat Sahu Lane, Lower
 Bazar, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Daily Market, Dist.-Ranchi
                                                   ....   ....   Appellant
                                         Versus
 1. Smt.Sushma Devi, W/o Late Bharat Lal Sahu
 2. Rahul Dev, S/o Late Bharat Lal Sahu
 3. Smt. Sweety Kumari, W/o Sri Baibhav Kumar & D/o Late Bharat Lal Sahu
 4. Princy Kumari (Minor), D/o Late Bharat Lal Sahu, through her mother,
     natural guardian & next friend Smt. Susham Devi (O.P. No. 1)
 5. Sheo Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Bhishnu Shankar Sahu
 6. Chuni Lal Sahu, S/o Late Bhishnu Shankar Sahu
 7. Bajrang Lal Sahu, S/o Late Bhishnu Shankar Sahu
 8. Raj Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Bhishnu Shankar Sahu
 9. Smt. Geeta Prasad, W/o Sri Amar Nath Prasad & D/o Late Bhishnu
     Shankar Sahu
10. Smt. Bharti Devi, W/o Awadh Bihari Prasad & D/o Late Bhishnu Shankar
     Sahu
11. Smt. Madhu Bala Devi, W/o Sri Jaigovind Prasad, D/o Late Bhishnu
     Shankar Sahu
12. Smt. Manimala Devi, W/o Late Mani Lal Sahu
13. Bhagirath Sahu, S/o Late Mani Lal Sahu
14. Bhusan Sahu, S/o Late Mani Lal Sahu
15. Sheo Lal Sahu, S/o Late Mani Lal Sahu
16. Smt. Champa Devi, W/o Sri Shailesh Chundra & D/o Late Mani Lal Sahu
17. Smt. Kanchan Mala Devi, W/o Sri Prem Shankar Bhagat, D/o Late Mani
     Lal Sahu
18. Smt. Kanak Lata Devi, W/o Sri Dilip Kr. Saha & D/o Late Mani Lal Sahu
19. Smt. Sumitra Devi, W/o Late Hira Lal Sahu
20. Basant Lal Sahu, S/o Late Hira Lal Sahu
21. Peyarelal Sahu, S/o Late Hira Lal Sahu
22. Smt. Sulekha Devi, W/o Kripa Shanka Sahu
23. Miss Kriti Chandra, D/o Kripa Shanka Sahu
24. Miss Ruchi Chandra, D/o Kripa Shanka Sahu
25. Uma Shankar Sahu, S/o Late Hira Lal Sahu
26. Vijayant Kr. Sahu, S/o Late Hira Lal Sahu
27. Smt. Saroj Devi, W/o Sri Prakash Kr. & D/o Late Hira Lal Sahu
28. Smt. Sunita Devi, W/o Sri Kishore Kr. & D/o Late Hira Lal Sahu
29. Jayant Kr. Sahu, S/o Late Laxmi Narayan Sahu
30. Jay Kr. Sahu, S/o Late Laxmi Narayan Sahu
31. Smt. Nirmala Devi, D/o Late Laxmi Narayan Sahu
32. Smt. Manju Devi, W/o Late Bileshwar Prasad Shaha & d/o Late Laxmi
     Narayan Sahu
33. Smt. Bela Devi, D/o Late Laxmi Narayan Sahu
34. Smt. Baby Devi, D/o Late Laxmi Narayan Sahu
35. Rajendra Prasad Sahu, S/o Late Mahesh Prasad Sahu
36. Smt. Reeta Devi, W/o Late Hemant Kr. Sahu
37.(a) Reva Rani Jayswal, W/o Ashok Jayswal & D/o Prabha Devi
37.(b) Shyama Gupta, W/o Prakash Gupta & D/o Prabha Devi
37.(b) (a) Prakash Chandra Gupta, S/o Late Shiv Shankar Gupta
37.(b) (b) Soni Bhagat, W/o Kunal Bhagat
 37.(b) (c) Moni Jaiswal, W/o Sunil Kr. Jaiswal
 37.(c) Gita Shaha
 37.(d) Asha Shaha
        Both are married daughters of Prabha Devi and Bhola Nath Shaha
37.(e) Lalit Kr. Shaha
37.(f) Shailesh Shaha
37.(g) Ranjit Shaha
       All sons of Prabha Devi and Bhola Nath Shaha
38. Durga Prasad, S/o Late Sheo Prasad Sahu
39. Rajesh Kumar, S/o Late Sheo Prasad Sahu
40. Smt. Sheela Devi, W/o Dr. Prabhash Chandra Mahapatra
41. Smt. Anita Devi, W/o Ashwini Kumar
42. Smt. Sangeeta Devi, W/o Sri Prem Ranjan Kr.
                                              ...       ....     Respondents
43. Smt. Savitry Devi, W/o Late Banshidhar Sahu
44. Ravi Chandra Sahu, S/o Late Banshi Dhar Sahu
45. Smt. Madhuri Devi, D/o Late Banshi Dhar Sahu & W/o Sri Kishore Kr.
    Gupta
46. Smt. Sudha Devi, D/o Late Banshi Dhar Sahu & W/o Late Ravindra
    Prasad
47. Smt. Seema Devi, D/o Late Banshi Dhar Sahu & W/o Sri Ram Chhabila
    Sahu
                     ...     ....     Plaintiffs No. 2 to 6/Proforma Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant                   : Mr. Mrinal Singh, Advocate
                                      Mr. Sachin Mahato, Advocate
                                      Mr. S K Murari, Advocate
                                      Mr. Vedabrata Banerjee, Advocate
                                      Mr. Kishore Kumar Mishra, Advocate
                                      Mr. Rajan Raj, Advocate
                                      Mr. Rohit, Advocate
                                      Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate

For the Respondent No. 12       : Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate
                                  Ms. Swati Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 44       : Mr. Rajiv N. Prasad, Advocate
                           ------

Order No. 08 / Dated : 27.02.2025.

1. This is an appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 against the judgment / order dated 01.02.2014 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi in L. A. Case No. 70 of 2004 subsequently converted into Title Suit No. 11 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the application for grant of letters of administration filed under Section 232 read with Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, has been dismissed by the Probate Court.

2. The application has been dismissed mainly on the ground that as per the case of the applicant, a registered deed of Will was executed on 28.09.1959 by Jaishree Devi with respect to property detailed in Schedule-B of the application in favour of Ratan Lal Sahu & Banshidhar Sahu, whereas the executrix died in the year 1982 and the application for letters of administration was filed in the year 2004, after long time i.e., almost 20 years. Learned Probate Court held that the application was barred by limitation under Section 137 of the Limitation Act.

3. Heard, learned counsel on behalf of the Proforma Respondent No. 44 in I.A. No. 11556 of 2024, which has been filed under Order XXIII Rule 1-A of the Civil Procedure Code for transposition in place of the appellant, who died during the pendency of the appeal on 25.10.2023.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel that he was a beneficiary in the registered Will dated 28.09.1959 executed by the testator, Jaishree Devi and was a co-applicant before the learned Probate Court for grant of letters of administration. In view of the fact that belated step was taken for substitution on the death of the appellant for condonation of delay, the petition for transposition has been filed by Respondent No. 44.

5. This Court is of the view that transposition cannot be allowed for the reason that transposition can be allowed only on two grounds as stated in Order XXIII Rule 1A CPC, i.e., where the original plaintiff has abandoned, or withdrawn from pursuing the case. Further, this is a provision specifically applicable to the suits as after the disposal of the suit, any of the party has right to file an appeal or file cross objection against the findings in the impugned judgment. Under Order XLI Rule 4 of the CPC, where there are more plaintiff or defendant in a suit, and the decree appealed from proceeds on a ground common to them all or any one plaintiff or defendant may appeal from the said judgment.

6. In the present appeal, there has not been any withdrawal or abandonment, but it has abated on the death of the appellant.

7. Under the circumstance the petition for transposition is without any merit and the interlocutory application accordingly stands dismissed. I.A. No. 13754 of 2024 & I.A. No. 13755 of 2024

9. Heard, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant in I.A. No. 13764 of 2024 filed under XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and I.A. No. 13755 of 2024 which has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay of about 320 days in filing the substitution petition.

10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that legal heirs/successor was not aware of legal implication and consequences and requirement of substitution, therefore, the instant petition could not be filed within time.

11. Generally, the petition for condonation of delay is considered liberally so that lis is decided on merit and substantive justice does not suffer. However, there should be some ground which inspires confidence of the Court regarding its genuineness. If condonation applications are allowed too liberally without any basis, provisions of the limitation Act will be rendered redundant .in the present Case there is an inordinate delay in filing the substitution petition of the appellant and no ground for the delay has been assigned, except the plea that the parties were in ignorance of provision of law. Ignorantia juris non excusat is the fundamental principle of law. It cannot be made ground in any case, for condonation of delay in preferring substitution petition. If such pleas are accepted, the provisions of Limitation Act will become otiose.

12. This is a case where the application for grant of letters of administration has been dismissed for being filed after long delay of 22 years against the said order.

13. In absence of any cogent and convincing ground for delay in preferring the substitution petition for the appellant, the interlocutory application filed for condonation of delay, is rejected.

The instant petition for substitution is hopelessly barred by limitation and is accordingly rejected.

Misc. Appeal stands dismissed as abated.

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ -