Ramesh Chandra Mishra v. Chandra Bhushan Mishra @ Bachchan And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1502 of 2016 ====================================================== Ramesh Chandra Mishra .... .... Appellant/s
Versus
Chandra Bhushan Mishra @ Bachchan & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma For the Respondent/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 23-12-2016 Heard learned counsel Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma for the petitioner.
Persued the impugned order dated 06.09.2016 passed by Additional District Judge-I, Sheohar in Probate Case No.01 of 2011 whereby the learned court below rejected the petition filed by the petitioner for being added as party in the probate case. It appears that one Permeshwar Mishra had three sons, namely, Ram Ekbal Mishra, Ram Ayodhya Mishra and Ram Lakhan Mishra. The third son Ram Lakhan Mishra died in the year 2007 leaving behind Malti Devi, his daughter. Ram Lakhan Mishra executed a Will in favour of two sons of Ram Ekbal Mishra and two sons had filed the probate case. The petitioner is the son of Late Ram Ayodhya Mishra. He filed the application for being as party; The learned court below by the impugned order held that he is a stranger to the family of Ram Lakhan Mishra.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1502 of 2016 (2) dt.23-12-2016 It may be mentioned here that the daughter of Ram Lakhan Mishra i.e. Malti Devi is an opposite party in the probate case. Admittedly Ram Lakhan Mishra died in the year 2007. Therefore, in view of the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act in the year 2005 Malti Devi became the coparcener in the family and whatever share Ram Lakhan Mishra would have received, will devolve on her. Now, therefore, when Class-I heir is there on record naturally the petitioner Ramesh Chandra Mishra who is son of Late Ram Ayodhya Mishra has got no caveatable interest in the property because even if no Will had been executed by Ram Lakhan Mishra, his property would have not devolved on the present petitioner.
In view of the above facts and circumstance, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous application is dismissed. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Harish/- U