IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.90 of 2008 1. Yogendra Prasad @ Yogendra Poddar S/o Late Mahadeo Poddar 2. Kailash Poddar S/o Late Sita Ram Poddar, Both are residents of village Mokhtiyarpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Begusarai. …….Interveners-Petitioners. Versus 1. Shuvankar Pd.Singh S/o Late Gaya Roy, Resident of village Makhtiyarpur, P.S Bhagwanpur, District Begusarai…………….Plaintiff-Opposite party 1st set. 2. Smt. Rama Devi W/o Ram Sagar Poddar 3. Ram Sagar Poddar S/o Late Kesho Poddar 4. Gopal Poddar S/o Ram Sagar Poddar 5. Lalan Poddar S/o Ram Sagar Poddar 6. Ram Shankar Poddar S/o Ram Sagar Poddar. All residents of village Mokhtiyarpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Begusarai.…..Defendants-Opposite party 2nd set. For the petitioners : M/s Mathura Nath Roy and Prabhat Kumar (Roy), Advocates. For opposite party no.1 : M/s Jagdish Pd. Bhagat and D.N. Tiwari, Advocates. ----------- 04/ 03.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for opposite party no.1. 2. This civil revision has been filed by interveners- petitioners challenging order dated 10.10.2007 by which learned Subordinate Judge-I, Begusarai rejected their application for being added as defendant nos.6 and 7 in Title Suit No.53 of 2005. 3. The case has a chequred history as initially Title Suit No.27 of 1950 was filed for partition of the land involved in that suit by four persons, namely Ishri Poddar, Ram Khelawan Poddar, Ram Sagar Poddar and Smt. Sarjug Devi. The said suit was decreed ex-parte vide judgment and preliminary decree dated 2 18.08.1951 whereafter final decree proceeding started and a report of Takhtabandi, etc. was filed by the Pleader Commissioner on 26.06.1954 which was accepted on 05.07.1954 by the trial court. 4. It further transpires that on 27.07.1954 a compromise petition was filed in the said final decree proceeding which was rejected by the trial court vide its order dated 02.08.1954 which was challenged by the plaintiff in M.A. No.383 of 1954 which was dismissed by the appellate court on 11.07.1958. However, it transpires that finally on 12.07.1966 final decree was sealed and signed making compromise petition as part of the decree and allotting the land in the instant suit to the share of the plaintiffs of the earlier suit. 5. It is quite apparent that the property which is now the subject matter of the subsequent suit (T.S. No.53 of 2005), out of which this civil revision has arisen, had fallen into the share of the plaintiffs of the earlier suit which was never challenged by anyone. It is also not in dispute that all the other plaintiffs having died, the suit property devolved upon plaintiff no.3 Ram Sagar Poddar, who gifted the same to his wife Rama Devi vide registered deed of gift dated 11.05.1990. Thereafter the said Rama Devi executed three sale deeds dated 23.11.2004 with respect to the instant suit land in favour of opposite party no.1. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid registered documents of transfer opposite party no.1 filed Title Suit No.53 of 2005 for declaration of his title and other ancillary relief against the 3 defendants who were claiming to be the heirs and successor of the other plaintiffs of the earlier suit. In the subsequent suit notices were issued to the defendants (opposite party nos.2 to 6) who appeared and contested. 7. Subsequently an intervention application dated 30.06.2006 was filed by the petitioners in T.S. No.53 of 2005 claiming that they were necessary parties for being added as defendants in the suit as they were heirs of the defendants of the earlier suit of 1950 and hence they were necessary to be added. This application has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 10.10.2007 against which the instant civil revision has been filed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently challenges the aforesaid order of the learned court below stating that the final decree was illegal, inoperative, never acted upon and never executed and hence no reliance can be placed upon it, specially when the petitioners have remained in exclusive possession of the suit property from the very beginning. Learned counsel for opposite party no.1 (plaintiff) contests the claim of the petitioners. 9. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned order of the learned court below it is quite apparent that in Takhtabandi report of the Pleader Commissioner dated 26.06.1954 which was accepted by the trial court on 05.07.1954 as well as in the final decree of the previous 4 suit dated 12.07.1966 the land which is involved in the subsequent suit was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs of the earlier suit. The defendants of the previous suit or their heirs who are interveners-petitioners in the instant case neither filed any miscellaneous case under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure nor they challenged the final decree in any appeal or even in any subsequent suit and hence the said decree has attained finality. In the said circumstances, opposite party no.1 was quite justified in filing the subsequent suit for declaration of his title only impleading the alleged heirs of the other plaintiffs of the earlier suit as defendants in the subsequent suit. 10. So far the question of final decree having been acted upon as well as the question of possession is concerned, it is quite apparent that the said decree had been acted upon, as on its basis registered documents of transfer had been executed in the year 1990 and 2004. Hence the entire claim of the interveners- petitioners is absolutely frivolous and misconceived and the learned court below rightly rejected the same. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )