Patna High Court
Smt. Pushpa DeviversusDeepak Kumar
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Summary
The appellants, members of the family of the late Dinanath Prasad Gupta, sought partition of jointly owned land, alleging that the defendant, a son of Dinanath's second wife, had illegally sold portions of the property while intoxicated, contrary to the terms of an earlier ekramana dated 15‑05‑1992 which required consent of the first‑wife’s heirs. The plaintiffs claimed the sale deeds were void and sought cancellation and partition of the suit land. The petition was withdrawn by the appellant’s counsel during the hearing. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the second appeal as withdrawn, without addressing the merits of the partition or sale‑deed disputes.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of a withdrawal of a petition on the pending appeal?
- Whether the sale deeds executed by the defendant in a state of intoxication are void under the terms of the ekramana.
Subjects
- partition
- sale deed
- ekramana
- inheritance
- withdrawal of appeal
- property law
- intoxication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SECOND APPEAL No.219 of 2020
======================================================
1. Smt. Pushpa Devi Wife of Deepak Kumar Resident of Mohalla- Miscot
Motihari, P.o. and P.s.- Motihari Town, District- East Champaran
2. Amar Nath @ Rohit Kumar S/o Deepak Kumar Resident of Mohalla- Miscot
Motihari, P.o. and P.s.- Motihari Town, District- East Champaran
3. Garib Nath Kumar @ Aakash Kumar S/o Deepak Kumar Resident of
Mohalla- Miscot Motihari, P.o. and P.s.- Motihari Town, District- East
Champaran
4. Komal Kumari W/o Ravi Gupta D/o Deepak Kumar, Resident of Mohalla-
Miscot Motihari, P.o. and P.s.- Motihari Town, District- East Champaran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Deepak Kumar S/o Late Deenanath Prasad Resident of Mohalla- Miscot
Motihari, P.o. and P.s.- Motihari Town, District- East Champaran
2. Dr. Priyadarshi Swastik Sinha W/o Dr. Sushil Kumar D/o Late Laxmi
Narain Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Gopalpur, P.o. and P.s.- Motihari Town,
District- East Champaran
3. Rajiv Prakash Son of Vijay Kumar Singh Resident of Mohalla- Belbanwa
Tola Agarwa, P.o. and P.s.- Motihari Town, District- East Champaran
4. Sanjiv Prakash Son of Vijay Kumar Singh Resident of Mohalla- Belbanwa
Tola Agarwa, P.o. and P.s.- Motihari Town, District- East Champaran
5. Most. Anju Devi W/o Late Mukesh Kumar Singh Resident of Mohalla-
Sagar Churaman, P.s.- Kesariya, P.o.- Bhagwatia, District- East Champaran
6. Kunal Kumar S/o Late Mukesh Kumar Singh Resident of Mohalla- Sagar
Churaman, P.s.- Kesariya, P.o.- Bhagwatia, District- East Champaran
7. Basant Singh S/o Late Nageshwar Singh Resident of Mohalla- Sagar
Churaman, P.s.- Kesariya, P.o.- Bhagwatia, District- East Champaran
8. Shir Umesh Singh S/o Late Nageshwar Singh Resident of Mohalla- Sagar
Churaman, P.s.- Kesariya, P.o.- Bhagwatia, District- East Champaran
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ambuj Nayan Chaubey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 03-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
Patna High Court SA No.219 of 2020(3) dt.03-04-2026
2/5
following relief/s:
(i) the case of the plaintiffs appellant in brief
as stated in the plaint is that a genealogical
table has been given at the foot of the plaint.
From perusal of the G.T. it would be evident
that late Dinanath Prasad Gupta had two
marriages. Two sons Sheonath Prasad
Gupta and Vinod Prasad Gupta and two
daughters, namely Manorama Devi and
Manju Devi are from first wife and after
death of first wife Dinanath Prasad
solernnized second marriage with plaintiff
No.1 from the wedlock he begotten one son
defendant no.1. The Plaintiff No.2 is wife of
defendant no 1. Plaintiff no.3 and 4 are two
sons and Komal Kumari is one daughter.
Further case of the plaintiff is that a
partition through Ekararnama dated 15.05.
1992 taken place in between sons of First
wife of Dinanath Prasad Gupta and
Plaintiffs and defendant no.1 and some of
the joint property was left which was
Patna High Court SA No.219 of 2020(3) dt.03-04-2026
3/5
partitioned through Khangi partition and all
the sharers according to partition are
coming on in possession of their respective
shares. The details of the suit land is given in
the Schedule 2 of the plaint in which there is
no any share of sons of Dinanath Prasad
from first wife, therefore, they have not being
made party in this suit. It has further been
stated that some of the plaintiffs are
pardanasin ladies and some are minor
whose shares in the suit land is 718 and the
suit land is in the joint possession of the
parties, out of which plaintiff No. 1 has
gifted land of Khesra No. 503 of area 13
Dhur to her grant sons plaintiff No. 3 and 4
through gilt deed dated 24.04. 1990 over
which they are in possession through their
mother plaintiff no.2. but due to the fault of
scribe the southern and western boundary
has been wrongly mentioned for which
plaintiff no 1 has executed deed of
rectification on 29.09. 1007. It is further
Patna High Court SA No.219 of 2020(3) dt.03-04-2026
4/5
been stated that defendant no. 1 is an addict
he always used to live with bad people and
he did not take care of his wife and children
therefore, only from the rent the maintenance
of plaintiff is being done. It has further been
stated that defendant no. 1 in the state of
intoxication has executed four sale deeds on
05.07.1906 in favour of defendant second
party for the consideration amount of Rs.
40,000 40,000-40,000% and 36,000-
respoctively total amount of Rs 1,50,000%
whereas there was no any necessity of saling
the land to the defendant no 1. It has further
been stated that according to the condition
of Ekramama dated 15.05.1902 the
defendant no.1 can not sale the property
without consent of plaintiff no. 1 and 2 and
heirs of first wife of Dinanath Prasad Gupta.
Therefore, the above said sale deeds are
illegal and unlawful. It has further been
stated that on asking from defendant no.1
about execution of sale deed in favour of
Patna High Court SA No.219 of 2020(3) dt.03-04-2026
5/5
defendant second party and for partition of
the suit land h became ready to commit
marpit, therefore this suit has been filed by
the plaintiff for partition of suit land after
cancellation of sale deeds executed by
defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant
second party.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for
withdrawal of the petition.
4. Accordingly, the second appeal no. 219 of 2020 is
dismissed as withdrawn.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.