Dhananjay Roy v. Surajbansh Roy

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Naresh Dekshit For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ritu Priyadarshani Mr. Kunal Tiwary Mr. Siddharth Harsh Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ojha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER 2 08-05-2012 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. By the impugned order the court below has rejected the prayer of the defendant for abatement of the suit under Section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. There is no dispute that the suit has been filed primarily for the relief that the deed of gift dated 18.02.1972 is fraudulent, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs and thereafter the further relief of partition has been sought. In view of Patna High Court C.R. No.629 of 2010 (2) dt.08-05-2012 2 the relief prayed in the plaint with regard to the gift deed the substratum of the issue between the parties to the validity of the gift deed is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the consolidation court as held by the Apex Court in the case of Gorakh Nath Dube Vs. Hari Narain Singh & Ors. reported in A.I.R. 1973 S.C.

#2451. In the impugned order also the court below has taken notice of the fact that the consolidation court has no jurisdiction to cancel or set aside any document. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is still no de-notification under Section 26A of the Act but even in view of the absence of de-notification and pendency of the consolidation proceedings also, the suit will not be covered by the provision of Section 4 (c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act,

#1956. There is no illegality or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. The revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. Devendra/- (V. Nath, J)