IN THE HIGH COURT OF
JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P. A No. 82 OF 2008
Rajendra Kumar Sharma Appellant
Versus
1.Surendra Nath Sharma
2.Narendra Kumar Sharma
3.Sri Lal Sharma
4.Devendra Nath Sharma Respondents
-------
CORAM HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.K. SINHA
For the Appellant/Petitioner M/s.B.K.Prasad, Bakshi Vibha
For the Respondent/Opp.Party ------
--------
3. 30.7.2008
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 5.2.2008
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P (C) No. 2166/2007, by which the writ
petition was allowed, directing the defendant-petitioner-respondent to implead the
daughters also to the Title Partition Suit No.32/2000, which is pending trial in the
court of Sub-Judge VII, Deoghar.
2. The plaintiff-appellant, who was respondent before the learned
Single Judge, has preferred this appeal and in support of the same, it was
submitted that the Partition Suit has been filed not for division of the coparcenary
property inherited by the Karta of the family but for the property which had been
raised by the father and sons of the family and the learned Single Judge has
committed an error in recording that the Partition Suit, which is pending, relates to
the partition of joint family ancestral property.
3. In so far as the nature of the property, which is involved in the
Partition Suit, is concerned, the appellate court at this stage cannot form an
opinion as to whether the suit property is a coparcenary property or is the property
raised by the father and sons of the family or that the sisters are not required to
be included. In any case, the nature of the suit property, which is the subject-
matter of the trial, obviously will be considered by the trial court on the basis of the
evidence adduced by the parties and if the suit is a partition suit, all the members
constituting the joint family will have to be impleaded as defendants. For this
reason alone, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
4. In so far as the interest of daughters of the family is concerned, if
they are impleaded and yet they do not choose to appear, the plaintiff will be
absolved of the responsibility of not proceeding in a legal manner. But at this
stage, if the learned Single Judge has been pleased to hold that the daughters
also should be included in the partition suit for the detailed reasons stated in the
impugned order on the point of law as also on merit, we find no good or legal
ground to interfere with the same, as the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge does not even cause any prejudice to the interest of the plaintiff-
appellant.
The appeal, under the circumstance, is dismissed at the stage of
admission itself.
(Gyan Sudha Misra.C.J.)
(D.K.Sinha.,J.)
dey