Dismissed

Kunjovati v. Ravindra Singh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC2 Aug 2012SA/385/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal against the dismissal of a suit for declaration of share in ancestral land, the High Court of Chhattisgarh found no substantial question of law. Relying on the plaintiff's own evidence admitting no share, the court held no illegality or perversity existed in the lower courts' decisions.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kunjovati Vs Ravindra Singh and Others — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

Second Appeal No. 385 of 2010

¶5

	APPELLANT Plaintiff	Ve	Kunjovati, D/o Nani Singh; aged about 66 years; R/o Village - Kudalgaon; Tahsil - Jagdalpur, District-Bastar rsus
	RESPONDENTS Defendants	1.	Ravindra Singh, S/o. Laxmi Nath, aged about 51 years,
		2.	Smt. Bhagvati, W/o. Late Sukhan Singh; aged about 61 years
^«""iiMn>		3.	Smt. Banakvati, W/o Dayashankar, aged about 63 years
		4.	Milap (wrongly shown as Milay) Singh, S/o Late Kamlochan; aged about 53 years
		5.	Devi Singh, S/o. Late Kamlochan; aged about 50 years
		6.	Smt. Padma, W/o. Late Kamlochan (since dead)
		7.	Trilochan, S/o. Khuja; aged about 76 years
		8.	Smt. Santo W/o. Milap Sihgh, aged about26 years
		9.	Smt. Fpolo, W/o. Devi Singh;aged about48 years
		10.	Durjan, S/o Trilochan; aged about 50 years
		11.	Mana Ram, S/o Trilochan; aged about 41 years
		1-2,	Rom Nath, S/o. Devi Shankar, aged ab6ut41 years
		13.	Manher, S/o. Virendra; aged about 36years ] /•
		14.	Ashok Singh, S/o. Virendra Singh; aged about 23 years

¶6

^':.

¶7

^^-'^^^^9^^S^^SS^SS3S.^-:^Si(£SS^.SE'^S Sii^ s&^^i^^^^

¶8

^£^^i^-?i^^^^?-^^;s^^^';iy;'

¶9

pri--^...^^ -<-.a^ ^^w^^'

¶10

c} 9

¶11

Sudarshan, S/'o. Lokendra Singh; (since dead on 10.09.2010), by Legal Representative 15.A Baidynath, S/o. Late Sudarshan; aged about - 35 years 15B Smt. Chandrakala, W/o. Mohan Singh, D/o. Late Sudarshan; aged about -32 years

¶12

Both R/o. - Village - Kudalgaon; Tahsil - Jagadalpur; District - Bastar 16. Smt. Raitee, W/o. Sudarshan; aged about 53 years;AII resident ofVillage - Kudalgaon; Tahsil - Jagdalpur; District Bastar (C.G.) 17. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Collector Bastar at Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.)

¶13

(SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE)

¶14

(SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.)

¶15

Present : Shri R.N. Jha,Advocate for the appellant. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyerforthe State.

¶16

ORAL ORDER

¶17

(Passed on 03/08/2012)

¶18

Heard on admission.

¶19

This is plaintiff's Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC against ths judgment and decree dated 27.7.2010 passed by 3 Additional District Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, in Civil Appeal No. 55A/2009 reversing the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2009 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge, Class II, Bastar at Jagdapur in Civil Suit No. 15-A/2009.

II r

1 ^ .^•'' ;y^.^

I (,

^..^

Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that: appellanVplaintiff filed a suit for declaration of her 1/3 share in the suit property, i.e 16.32 hectares of land situated at village Kudalgaon, Tahsil and District Jagdalpur described in paragraph 1 of the plaint and for separate possession inter alia on the ground the suit property was of one Bangu. Udkuda, Nani Singh- her father, Laxmi Nath and Son Singh were sons of Bangu. After'the death of Bangu, the suit land was recorded in the name of his elder son Udkuda as a Manager / Karta of the family. Since no heir of Udkuda is alive,she is entitled for 1/3 share in the suit property along with heirs of late Laxmi Nath and Son Singh.

¶27

Claim was denied by the defendants inter alia on the ground Bangu, Jaideo and Khujja were^three brothers. The suit property was their ancestral property. Plaintiff already separated herselffrom the family after getting 4 acres of land in the suit property and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

The trial court decreed the plaintiffs suit.

¶29

First appeal preferred thereagainst by the defendants was allowed by the first appellate Court and the suit was dismissed. Hence, this second appeal.

¶30

I have heard Shri R.N. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused ,the judgment and decree impugned including records of both the courts below.

¶31

The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit ignoring plaintiffs ^dmission in her evidence that slle had no share in the suit property; erroneously placing its reliance upon M/sa/ Bandobast 1913-14 though the same document has been disallowed by it to be taken on recordvide

¶32

•^•''^'•-•^ '\i •^&^—® ^ ?"f

¶33

order sheet dated 22.9.2009; and from its perusal, it cannot be inferred that suit property is same as mentioned in the Misal Bandobast.

¶34

Further, plaintiff Kunjovti had categorically admitted in her evidence that she had no share in the suit property, which is evident from paragraphs 24, 51,52 and 59 of her statement, which reads thus:-

¶35

"24. ff^ 4>^l ^t t ^f> ^K '(lft ^^^^T f^ ^PT qft

¶36

^i^Ra 11'

¶37

"51. ^T? 4>^\ ^t f f^ ^-?^^T ^ ^TS' :^N T^? Mt 41-1 ^t qit f^F^ ^' ^S^^T ^ f^TT STT ^f^T ^ lif^TRT ^ ^)€T ^' f^TT ®TT I"

¶38

" 52. ^T? <fr^'11 ^t t l^? ^^T '^ft ^S^^T ^ MHc|'1*ld ^" ^t ^t ':Tm ^R STcFT ^ 'IPTT STT 31^? ^R'CT ift sr^pr at 7rar m i"s

¶39

" 59. ffS ^f^n ^t t ^f> fi^H ^' ?ra^ cThTf ^T f^^HI t ^?T f^^l ^PTT(<T ?t 7TZTT 11 ^T^t cW ^T ^RrTt i"

¶40

First Appellate Court, after taking into consideration the above admissions made by plaintiff in her evidence; the fact that even after death of her father Nani Singh she never claimed any right in the suit property for the period of more than 40 years, had reversed the finding recorded by the trial Court and allowed the defendants' appeal holding plaintiff has no right or title to claim any share inthe suit property. The above findings recorded by the first Appellate Cou.rt are essentially findings of fact.

¶41

After going carefully through the record, l do not find any illegality, Yi/ absu'rdity and perversity in/the findings'recorded by the first Appellate Court. Substantial question of law proposed by the appellanVplaintiff does not arise at all for determination of this Court.

¶42

•^ w K

¶43

^ t

¶44

While dealing with the scope of Section 100 of CPC, the Supreme Court in case ofSantosh Hazari-v- Purushottam Tiwari reported in

¶45

(2001) 3 SCC 179 in para 12 held thus:-

¶46

"12. The phrase "substantial question of law", as occurring in the amendment Section 100 is not defined in the Code. The word substantial, as qualifying "question of law", means - of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with - technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of "substantial question of law" by suffixing the words "of general importance" as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of gen^ral importance. In Guran Ditta v. T. Ram Ditta (AIR 1928 PC 172), the phrase "substantial question of law" as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 110 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substahtial question of law which was involved in the case as between the parties...................."

¶47

This court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without there being any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Existence of substantial question of law is the sine-qua-non for the exerciseof the jurisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the Code. Learned counsel appearihg for the appellant failed to point out any substantial question of law which may arise for determination in the case, In the aj3sence whereofthis Court has no]option but to dismiss the appeal.

¶48

In view of above the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶49

No order as to costs.

¶50

SdA
N. K. Agarwal
Judge

Kunjovati v. Ravindra Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kunjovati v. Ravindra Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Singh Thakur Vs Pancham Singh Thakur and Others

Br.Manager National Insu.Comp.Ltd. Vs Piyush Agrawal and Others

Azimuddin @ Modia Dead Th.Lr'S and Ors. Vs Abrar Miya

Ramsahay and Ors. Vs Phiranthin Bai and Ors.

Smt.Prabha Choubey Vs Devi Prasad and Others

Smt.Prabha Choubey Vs Trilok Chand Barmecha and Others