Shree Krishna Singh v. Mirtyunjay Prasad Singh And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5399 of 2011 ======================================================
1. Shree Krishna Singh Son Of Late Harihar Prasad Singh Resident Of Village Sheonagar, (Sabalpur)P.S. Panjwara P.O. Mandar Vidapith, District Banka .... .... Defendant- Petitioner
Versus
1. Mirtyunjay Prasad Singh Son Of Late Harihar Prasad Singh Resident Of Village Sheonagar, P.O. Mandar Vidyapith , P.S. Panjwara, District Banka
2. Ram Narayan Singh Son Of Late Harihar Pd. Singh Resident Of Village Sheonagar, P.O. Mandar Vidyapith P.S. Panjwara , District Banka .... .... Plaintiffs- Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 17-08-2015 None for the defendant-petitioner.
Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh who has appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents.
The plaintiff-respondent filed Title Suit no. 72 of 2007 for partition of the suit land. A petition was filed by the defendant for abetting the suit under Section 4(b) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 ( for short 'the Act'). It was opposed by the other side. Both the parties filed information which were supplied to them by the consolidation authorities on the information slip(s). The trial court found the document submitted by the plaintiff more convincing in order to find that the consolidation operation was
Patna High Court CWJC No.5399 of 2011 (11) dt.17-08-2015 2/2 almost over in the three mouzas within which the suit land fall. That apart, the suit was for partition of the subject land. Under the Act such partition can be prayed and granted by the consolidation authority only when there is agreement/consent. There is no such agreement/consent between the parties since both of them are fighting the litigation in Court since long. This Court , in view of the above, does not find any patent illegality/flaw in the impugned order. Dismissed.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/- U