- (1.) Invoking the Supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Intervenor -petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 07.06.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division -II, Chatra whereby and whereunder the intervenor -petition filed by the petitioner with prayer to allow her to join as a defendant in the suit has been rejected.
(2.) The facts, which is relevant for the proper adjudication of the issue involved in this petition, in short, is that the respondent no.1 - Bhuneshwari Devi filed a Title Suit No. 03 of 2009 for rectification of the sale deed no. 1856 dated 11.05.1987 by inserting C.S. Plot no. 166 in place of C.S. Plot no. 21 as per the boundary given in the sale deed and for decree of permanent injunction directing the defendants, their servants, agents or any other in their behalf to abstain from putting disturbance in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and it was pleaded in the plaint that the land in question appertaining to C.S. Plot no. 166 under C.S. Khata no. 64 measuring an area one acre situated at village Kasmar, District - Chatra was owned and possessed by the vendor of the plaintiff Chandramani Kuer, who had acquired the same through Sada Hukmnama from the ex -landlord in the year 1948 and since after the settlement, the vendor of the plaintiff had been coming in the possession over the land and the name of the vendor was entered into the State revenue Sarishta. On 11.05.1987, the plaintiff purchased the suit land through registered sale deed from the vendor Mosammat Chandramani Kuer on payment of consideration amount and since the date of purchase, she became the absolute owner and has been coming in peaceful cultivating possession according to the boundary of the purchased land. The plaintiff, thereafter, filed a petition for mutation wherein a report was called by Anchal Adhikari and the name of the plaintiff was accordingly entered into the Demand Register i.e. Register no. -II and government rent receipt was also issued. During the lifetime of the said vendor, Chandramani Kuer, the defendants, who are her legal heirs, never raised any objection but after her death, the defendants started disturbing the possession of the plaintiff and later on, when he obtained a copy of the sale deed came to know that C.S. Plot number was wrongly mentioned as 21 in the sale deed in place of C.S. plot no. 166. Hence, this suit.
(3.) Upon notice, the defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement pleading therein that Gulab Chand Sao, who was their ancestor, had acquired land in the name of his wife namely Chandramani Kuer by virtue of Hukumnama dated 21.10.1941 but it was not the exclusive property of Chandramani Kuer and the suit plot is a part and parcel of 5.76 acres of land, which is joint possession of heirs of Chandramani Kuer and the present plaintiff and defendant no. 9 by practicing fraud upon Chandramani Kuer got a fake and bogus sale deed, which has never been acted upon and after the death of Chandramani Kuer and Gulab Chand Sao, his five sons came in possession of the entire property including the suit land of C.S. Khata no. 64.;