A second appeal was filed challenging concurrent findings that the appellant was not the daughter of Dhobai and had no share in the property. The High Court held no substantial question of law arose.
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®'?
^
•A
^ V
^ '^.,. .'?'*•"' IIII '31 ^i W
Im
| .8i o IQ H. (B l-' QL, (Bu *>.' y CO t;» Kf 4 (C ai .tn •-? <br>m o |
»&'• d) 1-ft H. £i q (u ai g- IB § ct ai^ o" m H* i-i s Si 0. K- 01 CTI ff cf |
P. "SS O' rf fl) H- s (U°- Ln .^ l< m 01h in y 01 (O^.t 0rf |
B U) T• u 'V 0) ^ s ' ^< 3) t-1 91 3 » cus, ^ rr |
rt- W § (A h-' sa o< Qi iQ cu g- P- 0 rrI K- n <-r » W H- 3 >d |
" |
(D <Q a> Q IJu ><; ai CU ^ M 1 t-i n> ca ^ a a 3 CT 8 @ B> 1 |
. } tO s (nrt- ss f-t- s<br>-0 Q 3" ej . (a !-•- i-! B) § , ^;o s 5' §- ft) K- |
ffl o" g- S- 1 8 iQ er sr 3" 8 e1 ai' Bla tl) h3 3 s tT ?L 3- cn f-«- |
& n S d) ra M rf ct • (6 ?I! ^ iQ 01 f-1 <"f t^- ^o 1-i (B B) (->. ^f Qj B § gi <r a> <* hh ,S; o o' 1 r w s |
\v <br>Q 1-J y (B w Q I >Q tQ. C» rf > p 1-! 0) h3ff § (U 1 (1) 1-1 cf aji K' t-* |
n 01 n % er 01 (B h _» "" aj. w S; B) B) !-'• ft L ^ 3 °' cn Q. a (B O" 3 (u rr •• P ,s: t-h -^ o g ss ^t 0> e h (? % ffi |
"<br>3 01 ff- a ai 3 iQ VI (t (B3 ct o 1-h q § OJ U1 "< (Ei p) |
o - 9 SS 1- f? in ' n cn C (D j a> •• c ^ a; |
o' :§ "" • l-l " ct i a> 4 &• ai i... T l' O 3 » &^ ftl |
:<br>l^ 3" 6) 9 » >Q %y |
(B '•3 (8 a en U1 0) ^ co 1-i (D m g- ? o ^ ^ gj aios |
t-1 ni ^rs • 0 B).. BI Lj. y w 1- 3 ~ 1 i; ° § 0. p- p) |
g El 9t ib sf 0 •* 10 , O • Ci sr ^ o 1-J O M (n t» ttl |
o s ' i. ^ 1 * i 3 r 0 f 0 f [ 0 1 [ c |
j 9 ' -t Tl. tf 3 t- 1 f m ). ^4 -* - Q, 5- «t -i ->. n r |
1 g>m fJ ^ 3 t+ QHl < }->• h^ hj !» Si f i ( ' L] ??a a (D ht* |
f Q B Qj fc O' § <T tn d) ^ s ui |
<! g h- tn Ml ct (B • Q td l^ U CT g O" hn w ta K. K! O »' 9 1 0) t->- f)3 g"I. ^tews^.n |
|---|
m
6 Kartik s/o Uttani Kurral, aged \ .aB'oufe 17.years (mlnor) thro' ~ /~gaari31an father Uttam / 7 Buddhoo son of Rafrhla, caste Rawat, age<3 53 years
Nos. 6 and 7 residents of vill: Khnruslenga, Tabsll Ghgrgbora, Distt. Raigarh, M.P.
SBCOND APPEAL UNDER'SECTION 100 OP THE COEE OF CIVIL PROCEBURE
erl 'hv f-he_Judament_& Decr^e dated
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashaht Kumar Mishjra
Second ADDKII No.224 /1994
Appellant
Mst. Banai
Versus
R^ipondents Mst. Gahnajharhin and othere.
Shri Sunit Sahu, counsel forthe appellant.
Appeal Under Sectron 100 ofthe Code of Chril Procedure
ORM.ORDER
(&3.03.2&18)
Tte instartt second appeal ureler Section 1(X) of CTPX;. has been prefenred by the plaintiff whose suit for dK;taration that the two sale-deeds dated 06-02-1^^ tt be declared null and void and it be declared that she has 1/8 share in the suit property and that possesston may also be delivered to her.
(2) It was stated by the piaintiff that she anddefendants No. 1to 4 betong to one family and the property beiongs to their forefather. The plairtiffis the daughter ofDh<Aai who was S/o Chakro.Plaintiff is bom from one Pahatiya, the second wife of DhtAai, and as such being daughter of Dhobai she is entitled to cleum share in the suit^Tpropeity? It was further ^ated that the defendants No.1,2 and 4 have alienated Sctredule B and Scheduie C lands in favour of defendants No. 5,6 and 7 which are illegal.
(3) The deferKlants disputed the fact that the plaintiff is the daughter of Dhobai. Accordir^ to them plaintiff is daughter of Gtemarsingh jand \as such has no rght to thesuit property. tt was also stated that
'-?£3
^-/•T
y^i'?'
ii;
v^-
y
_ ^
Pahatiya, the mother of plaint'rff, was the wife of Chamarsingh and not of Dhobai. Ttrey defended the sede-deed datetil 06-02-1985.
(4) The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have concurrently fourei that the plaintiff is not the daughter of Dhobai and that there was a previous partition in the family and also that the sale-deed dated 06-02-19^ is lawful and that the plaintiff does not have any share in the suit property.
(5) The core issue in the suit was whether the ptaintiff is the daughter of Dhobai and as such she is ent'rtled 1/8 share m the property.
(6) Both the Courts have concurrently found that the plaintiff is not daighter of Dhobai. This fimling is pure finding of fact.
(7) Counsel for the appellant has submitted that this finding is perverse and therefore a question of law arises for determination
(8) I have perused the pteadings made and evidence adduced by tte parties in the Courts below. In the plaint the plaintiffstates that Dhobai had two wifes namely Pahatiya aml Panchpadhin and she is the daughter of Dhobai from Pahatiya, however in her deposition she states in the examination in chtef that her mother's name is Gawahin and in the cro^ examination she states that her mother's nanne is Pahatiya.
In view of the state of pleadings and evMence on record, this Court is unabte to acce^ the argument advanced by the leamed '^ ^ ^ ^ ^ • counsel Tor_ the appellant thal the finding is perverse.
Y
^Wsah :'% ,«^<; -L ,-l ;' 'tllS1',.,,;>. '•^J
-3
(10) No sub^antial questton of taw arises Jtt determination in this appeal. Tt% present second appeal faiteand is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge
o
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is a substantial question of law arising from the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the plaintiff is not entitled to a share in the suit property.
Whether the finding that the plaintiff was not the daughter of Dhobai and thus had no share in the property was perverse.
Whether a second appeal should be allowed when no substantial question of law arises.
Mst. Banani
Rajesharan/7 Buddhoo and others
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
