Yogendra Bhagat vs Ram Awadh Bhagat
2025 Latest Caselaw 6744 Jhar

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 6744 Jhar
Judgement Date : 7 November, 2025

Jharkhand High Court

Yogendra Bhagat vs Ram Awadh Bhagat on 7 November, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

                                                               2025:JHHC:33365




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        C.M.P. No. 1085 of 2024
                               ------

Yogendra Bhagat, S/o Late Kalicharan @ Kali Bhagat, R/o Vill. Dhauri- Gopal, P.O. & P.S. Masrath, Dist. Chhapra and another in Mouza Madarpur, P.O. & P.S. Masrath, Dist. Chhapra, Bihar, presently r/o Manaitand, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhansar, Dist. Dhanbad .... .... .... Petitioner Versus

1. Ram Awadh Bhagat, S/o Late Bacchu Bhagat, R/o Manaitand, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhansar, Dist. Dhanbad

2. Meena Devi, W/o Shri Ashok Prasad, D/o Late Kalicharan Bhagat, R/o Vill. Manchha, P.O. Bagaura, P.S. Bagaura, Dist. Siwan, Bihar

3. Rajendra Bhagat

4. Surendra Bhagat

5. Satendra Bhagat Sl. No.3 to 5 all s/o Late Lali Bhagat & R/o Manaitand, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhansar, Dist. Dhanbad

6. Sarsawati Devi, D/o Late Lali Bhagat, W/o Basistha Bhagat, R/o Vill. Barwa, P.O. Barwa, P.S. Dauthpur, Dist. Chhapra, Bihar

7. Deoki Devi, W/o Late Rameshwar Bhagat

8. Gajendra Bhagat, S/o Late Rameshwar Bhagat

9. Binod Bhagat, S/o Late Rameshwar Bhagat Sl. No. 7 to 9 R/o Manaitand Chhath Talab Sabji Patti, P.O & P.S Dhansar, Dist. Dhanbad Sl. Nos. 7 to 9 are R/o Manaitand, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhansar, Dist. Dhanbad

10. Dhurpati Devi, W/o Shri Ram Prasad, D/o Late Rameshwar Bhagat, R/o ISM, New Market Shop No.4, P.O. ISM, PS. & Dist. Dhanbad

11. Meela Devi, W/o Lakshman Prasad, D/o Late Rameshwar Bhagat, R/o Manaitand Sabji Bagan, Chhath Talab, P.S. Dhansar, P.O. & Dist. Dhanbad

12. Manglawati Devi, W/o Prithwi Nath Prasad, D/o Late Rameshwar Bhagat R/o Vill. Ratauli, P.O. Bithuna, P.S. Basantpur, Dist. Siwan, Bihar

13. Indrawati Devi, W/o Sri Deepak Prasad, D/o Late Rameshwar Bhagat R/o Sabji Bagan, 4 No. Jharia, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, Dist. Dhanbad

14. Chinta Devi, W/o Sri Ram Awadh Bhagat

15. Umesh Bhagat, S/o Sri Ram Awadh Bhagat

16. Amartjeet Bhagat, S/o Sri Ram Awadh Bhagat

17. Shovawati Devi, D/o Sri Ram Awadh Bhagat

18. Durgawati Devi, D/o Sri Ram Awadh Bhagat

19. Rani Devi, D/o Sri Ram Awadh Bhagat Sl. Nos.14 to 19 R/o Manaitand, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhansar, Dist. Dhanbad

20. Parwati Devi, W/o Pancha Bhagat, D/o Sakhia Devi (D/o Late Bacchu Bhagat), R/o Vill. Jida Dehi, P.O. Mania, P.S. & Dist. Siwan, Bihar

21. Prabha Devi, W/o Sri Bhagwan Bhagat, D/o Sakhia Devi (D/o Late Bacchu Bhagat), R/o Vill. Dubwali, P.O. Jayanti, P.S. Panapur, Dist. Chhapra Bihar

22. Sabita Devi, W/o Sri Bhola Bhagat, D/o Sakhia Devi (D/o Late Bacchu Bhagat), R/o Vill. Gabhari, P.O. Rajopatti, P.S. Balkunthpur, Dist.

2025:JHHC:33365

Gopalganj Bihar

23. Rajpati Devi, W/o Sri Devendra Bhagat, D/o Sakhia Devi (D/o Late Bacchu Bhagat), R/o Vill. Mahmadpur, P.O. Bhodha, P.S. Panapur, Dist. Chhapra Bihar

24. Basmati Devi, W/o Sri Krishna Bhagat, D/o Sakhia Devi (D/o Late Bacchu Bhagat), R/o Vill. Aalpur, P.O. Gopalganj, P.S. Barbali, Dist. Gopalganj Bihar

25. Radha Kishun Bhagat, S/o Sakhia Devi (D/o Late Bacchu Bhagat), R/o Vill. Khajuri, P.O. Chhenuki, P.S. Panapur, Dist. Chhapra Bihar

26. Deo Nath Bhagat, S/o Late Devlati Devi (D/o Late Bacchu Bhagat), R/o Vill. Mukhar, P.O. Bagahi, P.S. Basantpur, Sivan, Bihar

27. Fulmati Devi, W/o Sri Prabhu Bhagat, D/o Late Devlati Devi (D/o Late Bacchu Bhagat), R/o Vill. Disarya, P.O. Tamkuhiraj, P.S. Pathairwa, Dist. Kushi Nagar, Bihar

28. Devmati Devi, W/o Sri Chandrama Bhagat, D/o Late Devlati Devi, (D/o Late Bacchu Bhagat), R/o Vill. Chandraprasa, P.O. Hasanpura, P.S. Chandraparsa, Dist. Sivan, Bihar .... .... .... Opposite Parties

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate Ms. Advita Arya, Advocate For the O.P. Nos.10&11 : Mr. Avinash Kumar Pasari, Advocate Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pasari, Advocate

------

Order No.05 / Dated : 07.11.2025 Petitioner is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.56 of 2017 which is filed for partition of the property as detailed in Schedule A of the plaint.

2. On 25.04.2023, the plaintiff filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC proposing following amendments: -

"Para 31 (a): That during the pendency of the suit i.e. during July, 2022 the plaintiff came to learn that successors of Rameshwar Bhagat i.e. defendant no. 10 to 13 filed a suit against the defendant no. 8 & 9 (sons of Rameshwar Bhagat) being Title (Partition) Suit No. 53/2010 before the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) 10th Dhanbad falsely claiming on the basis of forged and manipulated documents that properties described in Item-II & V of the plaint of this suit i.e. 1.44 acre land in Plot No. 4576 and Plot No. 2439 and 2.14 acre land in Plot No. 2403, 2404, 2405, 2406 and 2295, both of Mouza Dhanbad, belonged exclusively to Rameshwar Bhagat and on his death those properties 2025:JHHC:33365

devolved upon his successors i.e. defendant no. 8 to 13 of the present suit so they filed a suit for partition without impleading the plaintiff and other co-owners and managed to obtain a fraudulent and void decree of partition in that suit passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division) VIIth, Dhanbad and the said suit is now in the final decree stage before the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Xth, Dhanbad. Obviously judgement and decree passed in Title (Partition) Suit No. 53/2010 is not binding upon the plaintiff and other co-owners and a relief to that effect is also being sought.

Para 34 (e) A decree may kindly be passed declaring that judgement and decree dated 21-08-2018 passed in Title (Partition) Suit No. 53/2010 is void, collusive, illegal, the fraudulent and not binding upon plaintiff and those co-owners who were /are not parties to the suit".

3. Learned trial Court has rejected the petition on the ground that the amendment was not necessary for determination of real question in controversy between the parties.

4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that judgment and decree has been obtained by the defendants in Partition Suit No.53/2010 without impleading him which includes Item Nos.II and V of the property detailed in the schedule of the plaint. It is argued that since the said order has been obtained fraudulently without impleading the plaintiff therefore, for just decision of the partition suit and determination of questions involved, amendment is necessary for the ends of justice.

5. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pasari, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party nos.10 and 11 opposed the civil miscellaneous petition.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of petitioner/plaintiff, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order for the following reason: -

Firstly, in a partition suit, a prayer for declaration that judgment obtained in another partition suit was void, collusive and illegal on the ground of fraud, is impermissible. Operation of the judgment and decree can be set aside on freshly instituted suit on the grounds stated therein and 2025:JHHC:33365

the said prayer cannot be clubbed into a partition suit. Even otherwise as if the plaintiff was not a party to the said judgment and decree, it will not be binding on him in view of Section 41 of the Evidence Act. The judgment in civil cases, save and except certain exceptions, are judgment in personam and not a judgment in rem.