Appellant challenged District Judge's affirmation of dismissal of suit claiming partition of ancestral land. Court held appellant failed to establish oral partition. Mother had no title under Wajib-ul-Arz Rules after remarriage. Appeal dismissed at admission stage.
Appeal M.C.P. No. 1966/2006 dismissed; no order as to costs.
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.
,,
HIGH COURT OF cHHATTIseARH AT BILASPUR
s.A. No. 6712006”
Single Bench:
Hon’ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.
Appeilant Kodiya Bai, aged about 26 years Plaintiff D/o Shri Ram kawar by Occupation Agticulturist, Rio Aaledand, Tahsii Dongargarh Distt. Rajnandgaon Versus Respondents . Rakjkumar, aged about 25 years S/o Defendants Itwari 1b. Malkham aged about 23 years S/o itwari 1c. Radha Bai aged about 22 years Dlo ltwari 1d. Radhika Bai aged about 18 years D/o ltwari 1e. Urmiia Bai aged about 55 years W/o ltwari 2. Samaru aged about 39 years S/o Shirish 3. Sakalu aged about 35 years S/o Shirish r , 4. Barsan aged about 30 years S/o Shirish All Rio Viiiage Aaledand, Tahsil Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon The State of Chhattisgarh through Coiiector, Rajnandgaon
Present: Shri Parag Kotecha‘ with Shri Anand Shukla. learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Akhil Agrawal, PL for State.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Passedon15E“March,2007)
The following oral judgment of the Court was passed by Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Heard on admission.
f
’ 3. Learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the appellant has not been able to establish that after the death o'f Paltan, there was an oral partition in which the suit lands had fallen to the share‘of Sriram. He also does not dispute that after the death of Sri Ram, his wife Fatkan Bai had remarried. 4. There is a concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below that Sriram, father of the appellant, had died during the period of the erstwhile ruler of Khairagarh State and under the Wajib-ul-Arz Rules, Fatkan Bai, mother of the appellant, having remarried had absolutely no right or titte to the suit property. 5. Having considered the facts not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and after perusing the impugned order passed in First Appeal as also the order passed by the learned lower Court, l fully concur with the findings recorded by the lower Court and affirmed by the 15‘ Appellate Court which are based on proper appreciation of evidence both oral as well as documentary and are in conformity with law, l am of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. 6. This appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. ln view of the above, M.C.P. No. 1966/2006 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. "
"
Sd—/ M
l Dilip RaosahebDeshmukh ‘
Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an oral partition existed in favor of the appellant's father after the grandfather's death.
Kodiya Bai
Rakjkumar
Malkham
Radha Bai
Radhika Bai
Urmiia Bai
Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
