The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC as it did not involve any substantial question of law, upholding the lower courts' dismissal based on lack of evidence proving title and deficiency in filing documentary evidence.
The appeal and accompanying miscellaneous cases were dismissed at the admission stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
^^ ^
I^ ^&
..*••'.'^».^'^•y
^
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURfC.G)
Second Appeal No. 2.3>& /2005 SINGLE BENCH
APPELLANT /l5LAINTIFF
^ Ram Avadh Ray, S/o. Shiv Ray, Caste-Bhatt, Aged about 55 years, Viiiage Vishrampuri, Tahsil Cesta, District Bastar.
VERSUS
/ RESPONDENT DEFENDANT
. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Bastar, District Jagdalpur (C.G.)
SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CCODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
^
mOH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH. BELA8PUR
8BCOND APPBAL N0.238 OF 2005
RAM AWADH
Vs.
8TATB OF CHHATTI8GARH
Present: Shri S.C. Venna, learned counsel for the appellaat,
ORALORDE»
(02/09/20081
The following order of the Court was passed by Hon*ble Shri Sunll Kumar Sinha, J.
Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on admission.
The appellanVplaintiff has fited this Second ^>peal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28/2/2005 passed in Civil Appeal No.53-A/2002 by Fourth Additional District Judge (FTC), Kanker (Chhattisgarh), arising out of judgment and decree dated 2/2/99 passed in Civil Suit No.49-A/96 by the Civil Judge Class-11, Kanker (Chhattisgarh).
The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff ftted a Civil Suit against the State for the relief of declaration of his title on the strength of a Pafta issued in his favour and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from cancelling his Pafta.
The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land bearing Khasra No.827//2 area 0.08 hectare was allotted to him by the Naib Tehsildar in Revenue Case No. 212/A-68/79-80. Later on, thte Patts was cancelled by the Sub DJvisional Officer vide Revenue Case No.47/A19(5)/ 90-91 on 30/01/1992. The plaintiff filed an appeal against this
2
order passed by Sub Divisional Officer before the Commissioner, who also dismissed his appeal vide order dated 26/07/96 passed in Revenue Appeal No. 21/A-68/94-95. It is after all this; the Civil Suit was fited by the plaintiff for the aforesaid reliefs.
The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that since the Patta of the plaintiff was cancelled by the competent authority, therefore, the plaintiff cannot be declared as the owner of the suit property neither he can claim any permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from cancelling the Patta by them. After dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court. the plaintiff fited an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court and ttie Lower Appellate Court afker discussing the entire materlat on record ultimately held vide para 12 that the plaintiff could not establish as to how he can be declared owner ofthe property in question and he was entitled for any relief.
The First Appellate Court has also observed that in the present case, the plaintiff has not filed any relevant documentary evidence in support of his pleadings. He has only filed the copy of Rin PusSka. The plaintiff has even not filed a copy of Fafta, a copy of order passed by the Sub Divisional OfRcer or the copy of order passed by the Commissioner so that Jt could be analysed by the Court as to why his Patta was cancelted by the Revenue Authorities or in alternative to analyse as to whether the Patta was cancelled after adopting due procedure of law or after foltowing the fundamentat principles of judicial procedure.
1 have heard the tearned counsel for the appetlant at length and have gone through the records ofthe Courte below. Learned Counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any infinnity in the juc^ment and decree passed by tiie two Courte below. This appeal does not involve any substential question of law. The same is dismissed at the motion stage jtself. Consequently, MCP Nos.730/2005 and 731/2005 are also dismissed.
Sd/Sunil Kumar Sinha 1 Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge could substantially examine the First Appellate Court judgment which dismissed the suit for lack of evidence on title and cancellation of Patta.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Avadh Ray
State of Chhattisgarh
Sunil Kumar Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
