In this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The lower courts had acquitted the suit regarding partition and title because the appellant failed to prove the disputed land was ancestral or joint Hindu family property due to a lack of evidence.
The second appeal was 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.
.^.'^,^ •%»^j^ ^'^!//A."^s^^
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BI
APPBLLANT PLAINTIFF
Janak Ram S/o Nandlal, aged about 28 years, R/o SiwaEiikhurd, Patwari Halka No. 8, Tahsil & Distt. Dhamtan (C.G.).
VSRSUS 1. Sukhlal S/o Duwaru Ram Sahu aged about 60 . years, R/o Vfllage Siwanikhurd, Tahsil & Distt. Dhamtari(C.G.). 2. State of Chliatdsgarh Through District CoUector, Dhaintari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.).
MEMORANDUM OF SECOND API%AL U/S 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
(SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.)
Present:- Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate with Shri Sanjeev Banjare, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 not noticed.
ORAL- JUDGBMENT
(Passed ®a05/08/2011)
By fhis second appeal uuder Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 appeUant has chaUenged the legaUty aad propriety of the judgment dated 27/10/09 passed by Additional District Judge, (F.T.C.) Dhamtari Distnct Dharatari, C.G. ia civil appeal No. 6A/2009 afBrmiag the judgment aad decree of disniissal of suit for declaration of title, partition, possession and penaanent injunctioa Passed by First Civil Judge Class-2, DIiamtari in civil siiitNo. 206A/06 videjudgmentdated 8/5/08.
Shri Awadh Tripaftii, Advocate with Shri Sanjeev Banjare, Advocate for the appeUant and • Sbri Sanjeev Kuiaar Agrawal, P.L. for the State/respoadent No. 2. are lieard.
Judgment aad decree impugned aad record of bofh the Courts below perused. As per plaint aUegation inade by present appeUant/plauitiff land ia dispute was his ancestral property recorded in fhe narne of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 has refused to give share to the present appellant/plaintiff
fsiKs.S
and aforesaid ground suit for declara.tion of title, partition, possession aad pentiauentiujuactionwasfiled.RespondentNo. 1 has denied the adverse ailegation and specificaUy pleaded respondent No. 1 has recorded owner of the propertyandaforesaid propertyishissetfacquired property.After providing an opportunity of hearing, both the Courts below have disnussed the suit and appeal on the ground that present appeUant has failed to proofthe property is aiicestral property or joiat Hiadu famfly property. VirtuaUy appeUant has not adduced any evidence to proof or discharge his burden. In absence of any evidence bofh ftie Courts below hav.e rightly disiaissed fhe suit and appeal filed on behalf of ftie appeUaat, I do not find any substantial question of law for decision of this second appeal. Consequently, second appeal is liable to be disraissed and is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
T.P. Sharma Judge
/
u?tis.it,3'".——-fc-,.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a substantial question of law arises when the lower courts dismissed the suit for failure to adduce evidence proving ancestral or joint Hindu family property.
Whether the lower courts rightly dismissed the suit and appeal on the ground that the appellant failed to discharge his burden of proof regarding the nature of the property.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Janak Ram S/o Nandlal
Sukhlal S/o Duwaru Ram Sahu
State of Chhattisgarh
T.P. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
