The High Court allowed appellants' applications for condonation of delay and deletion of a deceased respondent's name from the cause title. The Court also affirmed that an unregistered document was a valid gift deed, not a will.
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.
/
~ 5; IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BIMgUg\ , CHHATTISGARH \
v;
s.A. No. £5 Lawn
AP LLANT i : iLMmQ /Manaro v W/o. MaganBai, RamagedGond>about Occupation50 years. Agriculturist R/o. Bhediya Tahsil Bhanupratappur, Distt. Kanker tdVERSUS REsmNDENTs \ Dhirpal, \FENDANTs //1a/3 aged about 55 years g S/o Ranjan Gond 'X/I‘BK.(P/ Lakhani Bai ,aged / about 40 years W/o. Darzen /‘ Gond, / ' x ;::’é§,~0E/1 am I .I.’ )Sa‘ .- ‘é-Q' / Lakhmu, aged about 32 years S/o. Dhirpa1 4//J/d.{)/ W/o.Kala DasrathBal, aged about 28 years f; 9/ Kalaram /1e ,aged about 25 years S/o. Dhirpal ( ..... All R/o‘ Village Dongarkatta, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District Kanker / State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector DistriCJ/Kanker (C.G.)
APPELLMQW‘ a ‘a’ Ra€§haraa ageéabcutin, yeam 3/9 ié‘agan £3?! 1 {h}Swarm ageaa ahout 3a years W9Fiaganraa xKc§ $13k. Mésa§ai iiiéow of8ajazan 1011 Q. {&) Bal'aulal agerl about 23 years $/a ka§axa 1 (e)3arjuxm ageé abcut at) years $12) lajarw J1 {a §anshi1a1 agee! mat 18 years $/c kajaran All$e$wermafVillage Ihe‘éiyagahsil mampacatagpuz Matt. Eame: 1 {£53 $mt. 3ajob£ age§abant 4g yeaw ‘Wa Naganmn w/o'sonaxaa R/o ‘Vnl age ‘Ehiigarkattm liatt. Kan‘karl a (m smt. Shayaahati ageg about 35 yeats @hEaganrwW/a$axjutanR/bVinage ,. mmnbeaa§istt. Kénker. «Meg ¢ w aYdQY 7// \0'Sr QK/m/w n9» \ \W)
XI—HC-78
EW,W€;W’ o S‘ZQ‘ND‘ig m3 WW o.o"o.oo oo.oo o. E 200
mm (W)
| mam mmm |
mwm | ‘ aiwm N |
|---|---|---|
| 33.61206? : Shri Praka3h Tiwari, coL Shri Viahnu Koshta, com Shri GD. Wawmni, Dy. € the application under Order 22 E Heard on LA. No.321’8 Nat opposed. The appiicaiion is ailowe condoned. N0. 1-a Dhirpal who expi; representatives of deceased D titie. Heard on LA. No.240 of that the mame of respondent N Not opposed. The appiication is allowec dele‘ied from the cause—titie. eard/on LA. No.3217 of Not opposed. The appiioation’ is ailowed |
of 200$, for oondonation of deiay in ‘s‘iiing rse! for respondents 1-b to ’i~e. 3.A. for the State/responcreni No.2. oi. and the de§ay in fiiing the appiica’rion is 2006, for deieting ’r'ne name of respondent 0.1-a Dhripai be deleted from the cause— red on 27.03.2005. Since the regal wripa} are already on record, it §s prayed 2006, for taking documents‘on record. nsel for {he appenanrs. Quie 2 of CPC. l, Name of reopondent No.1-a Dhripal be and ’ihe documents are taken on record.[/V |
XI—HC—78
WW, Wig, W
MMLSL2W3 Wm 200
mmmW)
| WWW m‘mm |
mwm F21 |
WW§WW‘ ( . '%;s?%man%¥¥ ‘ " " |
|---|---|---|
| Heard en admissian. | ||
| The appeiiani’—phiniiff ir Civil Judge, C2ass-§§, Bhanu possassion on ihe ground that favour Wde EXFH. it is mi dis was in posse$si0n of the suit cansideri‘ng ihe aSsemons mad‘ haci put her in possessian of 4;? and the manner 'm which EXP/W demf‘aent was m fact a gifm‘ construed as a Wm. S§nce tha deciaration of We was dism‘ |
ysiiiui'ed Civii Suit NQBO-N‘i$94 be‘hm ihe prafappar for deciaz'aiion of title and hey father Tibhu had executed a Wm in her suted ihai on the daie of suit ihe u'efewan‘t lands‘ Learned Givéi Judgge, Cia$s—l3 after E by the p§aini§ff in her testimony iha‘t Tibhu e suit §ands on exewi‘icn of the dowmem 1 was cauched, rewarded a $inc’xing that the ”sad execuiw by Tibhu ano‘f couid mt be document was not ragisfxareé‘ the suitfor ssed on ihat count. Aggrieved by the |
|
| judgment and decree passed preferred Civii Appeai No.4-A Judge, Kanker. The First A recorded by rhe learned Civil not a wiii and was an unregis appeai was eise dismissed. |
P.T.O . in Civil Suit No.30—Afi994‘ the piaintiif 2000 before the First Additional District ppeiiate Couri aiso affirmed the finding Judge, Class-” that document EXP/i wa5 :ered girl-deed. On this premise, the first |
XI—HC—78
f
,WWWW g‘A(po.?_S'L....... .1&03 <sup>200
Was-uh;
WW
| WEHW WWW |
gammm “E |
WW§WW am1§mm F |
|---|---|---|
| Shri Prakash Tiwari, {ear piaced reliance 0n Ramabai §ad V. Rukminibai Vishnu Venkhan 3109 and $mt. Framed Kumar Gizhers reported in AIR W80 SC the intention 0f Tibhu in execut been borne in mind and since it the iand mutated in her name on ’co have been construed as a wiil by both the Courts bekow is erro of iaw in this appeal as to whet? recoreting a finding that the docum and not a will. l have heard learned coe document Ex.P/1 as also the te evidence ted by the parties. Mane that at the time of execution possession of the suit lands to he Namantaran Panji ExD—ll the na |
md counsel appearing for the appeiiants makar Pam (dead) by LRe and oiher3, de and others reported in Am 2003 SQ i Bhatia V. 0m Prakash Bhatia anci 4436 , in support 0f his contentior: that ing the document EXP/1 ought to have was intended that the piaintiff couid get the death of Tibhu , the document cught and in this manner the finding recorded neous and raises a substantiai question er both the Courts below have erred in“ ent EXP/’1 is an unregistered gift-deed nsei for the parties and perused the stimony of plaintiff-Manaro Bat and the ro Bai admitted in her cross—examinatien of the document Tibhu had delivered r. lt is also pertinent to note that in the ne of Manaro Bai was mutated overJthe / / (/, |
XI—HC-78
3am, Wang, Farmagt 1°03 SrA-«NnvLSL ......... mmo.oo‘oo.¢q.o 200
mmo.oo‘oo.¢q.o
WW(W)
| WWW “L‘ |
WW§WM T ‘ %mm 7 |
|---|---|
| $uit lands as an heir of TibhL |
and no? on the basis cf the dacumen‘i‘ |
| EXPH‘ Manaro Bai has msa |
admiited in her mossuexaminaion that in |
| revenue proceedings the said C document. m my considered o, |
‘ocument EXP/1 wee found to be a forged inion‘ the mere fact that vide Ex.F’/1 Tibhu r |
| had expressed his intention th name mutated over the suit construe the document as a wi i |
t after hie death Manaro Bai Gourd get her and would by itself, not be sufficient to . Menaro Bai admitted in her examination- |
| in-chief that her name was mut | ted Over the suit tends by Tibhu during his |
| iife time. This compieteiy nui suit iands to Manaro Bai after was delivered by Tibhu to M i |
ies the intention of Tibhu to bequeath the s death. The possession of the suit lands naro Bat at the time of executien ef the ‘i i |
| document white expressing a c | ear intention 0t executing a gift in favour of |
| Manaro Bat. The document |
was therefore, rightiy construed as an |
| unregistered dooument of gift undated document. Learned o able to furnish the date of de' appeilant had tiledthis suit so |
nd not a wilt. The doeument EXPH is an ounsei for the appellants has also not been th of Tibhu so as to disoiose whether‘the n thereafter for deciaration of titie over the |
| suit property. Manaro Bat |
admitted that after iosing in revenue |
| proceedings from the Court of she had filed the suit on the b a |
Tahsiidar up to the Court of Commissioner is of document EXP/1. She aiso admitted t, |
XI-HC-78
A300Z; '2. L~03 .oooo... ‘ 200
Wm¢¢§ooo§oooo
WW(W)
.i‘c
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the unregistered document executed by the deceased mother should be construed as a gift deed or a will.
Whether the High Court erred in holding that the intention to create a will was not borne maturely due to lack of possession at the time of execution.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dhirpal Gond
Hon'ble Justice V. P. Bhat (Implied from context of HC bench)
Unknown Associate Judge
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
