Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

This case involved a long-standing family property dispute over partition and management of rental income from several houses and lands in Patna. The appellant (plaintiff in the original suit) had claimed a share in the joint family property, alleging that his father (defendant no. 1) was unfairly collecting rent without distributing his due portion.

Background of the Dispute

• The appellant filed Title Suit No. 230 of 2013 seeking partition, claiming 1/9th share in property A & C (standing in the late mother’s name) and 1/6th share in property B (standing jointly in the name of appellant and some brothers).
• He argued that all properties were bought using joint family funds after selling ancestral property, and therefore should be divided among all legal heirs.
• He also alleged that his father, as karta (head) of the joint family, was collecting rent but not sharing it.
• The appellant requested appointment of a receiver so that rental income could be deposited in court instead of being usurped.

The trial court (Sub-Judge VIII, Patna) rejected the receiver application on 15 June 2017. The plaintiff then filed this appeal before the Patna High Court.

Defence by Respondents

• The father (defendant no. 1) denied joint ownership, claiming the disputed houses and lands were his self-acquired properties, bought from his own earnings.
• He contended that his wife (in whose name some properties stood) was a housewife and his sons were minors when purchases were made. Hence, neither the plaintiff nor other brothers had any share.
• He also made a counterclaim that some of the properties were his exclusive benami properties, and a gift deed relied upon by the appellant was forged.
• Some of the brothers (defendant nos. 5, 7, and 8) supported the father’s stand, claiming that the properties were bequeathed to them by a Will dated 03.03.2010 executed by their father.

The Twist: Contesting by a Deceased Person

While hearing the appeal, the High Court discovered a striking fact:

• The father, defendant no. 1, had died on 30 March 2013, before the partition suit was even filed (on 8 April 2013).
• Yet, a written statement was filed in his name on 1 August 2013, verified as if he were alive.
• This meant the trial court’s order rejecting appointment of receiver was based on pleadings made in the name of a dead person, rendering it legally void.

Court’s Findings

• The High Court (Justice S. Kumar) held that the order of 15 June 2017 was void and non est in law, since it was effectively contested by a deceased defendant.
• After the father’s death, the nature of the suit had also changed:
  • The plaintiff now claimed share by inheritance (succession), even if properties were self-acquired.
  • Defendants nos. 5, 7, and 8 claimed ownership through the 2010 Will.
• Since both claims (succession vs Will) had to be adjudicated together, the Court ordered the partition suit and the Will-related case (Title Suit No. 49 of 2018, pending on Letters of Administration) to be heard side by side.

Final Order of the High Court

• The impugned trial court order (15.06.2017) was set aside.
• The plaintiff was given liberty to file a fresh application for appointment of a receiver, which the trial court must consider afresh after hearing all parties.
• The District Judge, Patna, was directed to transfer both the partition suit and the Will-related suit to the same court for parallel adjudication.
• The Miscellaneous Appeal was disposed of.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

• For Property Disputes: The judgment highlights that any legal proceeding conducted with a deceased party on record is invalid. Courts must ensure that substitution of legal heirs is made promptly.
• For Family Litigants: Even when claims of “self-acquired property” and “joint family property” collide, succession and Wills become decisive factors post the death of the karta.
• For Judicial Process: This ruling stresses that technical irregularities such as filing pleadings in the name of dead persons can vitiate entire proceedings. Fresh adjudication is necessary in such cases.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Reasoning

• Whether trial court order rejecting receiver application was valid?
  → No. It was void, as it was contested by a dead defendant.
• What happens after death of karta/defendant?
  → Suit transforms: plaintiff claims by inheritance, while others claim through Will. Both issues must be adjudicated together.
• What was the final remedy?
  → Set aside trial court’s order; allowed fresh application for receiver; ordered joint hearing of partition and Will cases.

Case Title

Satya Narain Singh @ Satyendra Narain Singh v. Bangali Singh & Ors.

Case Number

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 990 of 2017

Citation(s)

2021(1)PLJR 455

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar

Names of Advocates and Appearance

• Mr. J.S. Arora, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Manoj Kumar and Mr. Gaurav Pratap — for the appellant
• Mr. Radha Mohan Pandey and Mr. Chandrashekhar Verma — for the respondents (nos. 5, 7, and 8)

Link to Judgment

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MiM5OTAjMjAxNyMxI04=-ynIRtk5IjgY=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.