Allowed

Laharam and Ors. v. Mangal Singh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC4 Jul 2013SA/720/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the lower court illegally decreed the suit on a sale-deed without demarcating the disputed land. The judgment set aside the lower decrees and remanded the case for local inspection and fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Judgments and decrees of lower courts set aside; case remitted to trial court for local inspection by Commissioner and fresh decision.

Laharam and Ors. Vs Mangal Singh and Ors. — Partition | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

,^-^ '<br>

¶2

IN THE HI6H COIJRT OF JUDICATURE M; 3KBKLiPV& SECOND AFPEAL (O. '-7-20 OF 1998

¶3

SBCO .,^£E&L_OTroER SBCTIOH 100 QP THE CCaSE OF CT7TL , PROCgDURB

¶4

APPEUL&HTS/ DEFEBDANIS

¶5

t. Laharaa son of Makkar Singh aged about 45 years.

¶6

Ramflayal Son of Makkar Singh eged about 40 years.

¶7

Budhawa Sonof Makkar Singh aged abou-t 37 years •

¶8

i f.

¶9

Deendayal son of Kakkar Singh aged about 54 years.

¶10

-^. ^.
^ 1^.-". . ^->?
N^:- .^'
^>dy'>"""....'
^^-- ^•-•~
RESPONDEN-rS/
PIAIin'IFFS

¶11

Budhraa, Son of MaMcar Singh>j aged abou-t 38 years.

¶12

All Mawar by castes residents of Village Balpur Tahisil Janjgir Dis-trict ChaiBRa, Janjgir (Mp).

¶13

- Yersus -

¶14

t. Mangal Singh son of Haras Raa aged about 38 years.

¶15

*v<

¶16

Sharosl Ramson o£ Parasram aged about 39 years.

¶17

?rf 2. Sharosl Ramson
Oe.'^Z'^^^.f""-A.&(V^ a* J?- es' aged about 39 years.
|3. Dasmat Bai Widowof Paras
cCS** r^s",1» Ram aged abou-fc 55 years.
f^ ,v^ iS .T'^/-f^l ^ll Mawar by caste, and
-^^
j,t^y'^-hi/"" resldents o£ Balpur, Tahsil
- ^&VA ^
'1^y\ Janjgir Bistrict Chanpa-
Janjgir (MP)
^y
1^—BESPOSBENT/ 4, Sfate of Madhya Pradesh,
DEEENBAST No .6 Through Collector

¶18

|3.^{DasmatBaiWidowofParas} | Ram aged abou-fc 55 years. j

¶19

4, Sfate of Madhya Pradesh, Through Collector Bilaspur(MP

¶20

MEMOKANDUM OFSECOND ftPPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF C.P.e.

¶21

(^Y:. S.A. No. 720 oF 1998 Page 1 of2

¶22

COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶23

	Second	Appeal No. 720of 1998
APPELLANTS DeFendants	1	Laharam
	2	Ramdayal
	3	Budhawa
	4	Deendayal
	5	Budhram
		VERSUS
RESPONDENTS PlaintiFFs	1	MangalSingh
	2	Bharosi Ram
	3	DasmatBai(died&deleted)
	4	State oF Madhya Pradesh (Now State oFChhattisgarh)

¶24

rSecond Appeal under Ser-tion 100 oF tha C"de of Civil Procedurel

¶25

Present:-

¶26

Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For the appellants. None for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶27

Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Foi- the respondent No.4/State.

¶28

$SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.)

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(Passedon 05/07/2013)

¶31

By this Second appeal under Section 100 of the Code oF Civil Procedure, 1908 (For short 'the Code') the appellants have challenged the legality and propriety oF the judgment: and decree dated 6.7.1998 passed by the Additional DistrictJudge.Janjginn CivilAppeal No. 23-A/1994 reversing the judgment and decree dated 11.11.1994 passed by the Civil Judge Class-ll, Janjgir in Civil Suifc No. 84-A/1990 has been admitted for consideration on Following substantial question oF law :

¶32

"Whether the Court below rightly passed the judgment and

¶33

decree on the basis oF Ex.D-3, the sale-deed executed by

¶34

Parasram in Favour of Makkar Singh ?"

¶35

¶36

Heard leamed counsel For the parties.

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellants submifcs that vide registered sale-deed Ex./D-3 Father of the appetlants have obtained possession of the suit property area 0.50 acre oF khasra No. 731, respondents have claimed the

¶38

propertyas partofkhasra No. 731/1.

¶39

S.A.No.7Z5^f1998 Page2oF2

Undisputedly, present appellants were owner of khasra No.731/2 after purchasing^the part^{oFlandandrespondentsareownerofkhasraNo.731/1.} Respondents have Failed to examine revenue officers or have Failed to apply For appointment oF Commissioner Fdr local inspection. Without demarcation of the land, it was not possible For the Court below to decide whether presenk appellants have encroached the land owned by the respondents or dispossessed the respondents From their land. But by decreeing the suit on the basis of perusal oF map, lower appellate Court has committed an illegaliLy.

¶46

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the appeal.

¶47

Undisputedly, as per claim oF the parties, land owned by both the parties are adjoining to each other. As per claim oF the respondents, appellants have dispossessed them From part of their land. With a view to ascertain the encroachment, it was obligatory upon the respondents to get it demarcated by the intervention of Court, but it has not been demarcated by intervention of the Court. ThereFore without any substantive evidence, the Court below ought not to have decreed the suit and by decreeing the suit Court below has committed an illegality. Court below has not passed the decree on the basis oF Ex./D-3 in its prospective manner. Consequently, substantial question of law is decided as negative.

¶48

On the basis of finding on aforesaid substantial question oF law, appeal deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. Judgments and decrees passed^{bytheCourtsbelowarehereby setaside.}

¶49

Case is remitted to the trial Court For providing opportunity fco the respondents of Filing application under Order 26 Rule 9 oF the Code For demarcation i.e. local inspection by appointing the Commissioner, and to decide the case aFresh in accordance with law. Parties shall remain in attendance beFore the trial Court on 12.08.2013. No order as to costs.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

T.P. Sharma Judge

Laharam and Ors. v. Mangal Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laharam and Ors. v. Mangal Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Chandra Verma Vs the State of M.P.and Ors.

Satya Dev Pandey And Ors. Vs Kiran Kant Robinson And Ors.

Smt.Kumud Yadav Vs M.D.,Bhilai Steel Plant and Ors.

Somaru Vs Sahdeo and Ors.

Pavitra Vs Haridhar and Ors.

Bharat Lal Gwal and Ors. Vs Sadhuram and Ors.