Dismissed

Ramdeo and Another v. Chaturi and Others

Chhattisgarh HC5 Sept 2014SA/345/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal challenged the dismissal of a suit for declaration of title and cancellation of sale deed on the ground of limitation. The High Court found no illegality in the lower courts' concurrent finding that the suit was time-barred. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Ramdeo and Another Vs Chaturi and Others — Partition | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

It'I THE HIGH GOURT OF JUDiGATURE QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

s.A._No.3^:^2oo5 SINGLE BENCH

¶4

AEPELLWTS

¶5

(1) Ramdeo son of Late Pachkaudi aged 40 years.

¶6

x^/
^y,^^/ (2) 43Chhedilalyears• son of Late Pachkaudi aged
/^v ^;
(Both are resident of village Damodarpur,
^wx
^•'^' y
<"<<y Police Station Shankergarh, District

¶7

(Both are resident of village Damodarpur, Police Station Shankergarh, District Sarguja, (Chhattisgarh) (PLAINTJFF)

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

HESfeQNuENTS (..1) Chaturi son of Jungi, aged 60 years, resident of village Daniodarpur, Police Station Shankergarh; Qistric.t Sarguja, (Chhattisgarh)

¶10

.(2) ^' . Sahodri widow of Laljee aged 35 years. (.3) Rajmati daughter of Laljee aged 4 years• (Both aie No. 2 and 3 are resident of village Belwatikar, Police^Station Maral Tahsil Gadhawa,. District Gadhawa, Sharkhand (DEFENDENTS; (4) State of Chhattisgarh through Collector / Sarguja. (£IB£®MAJ}E£gyi2@iI)

¶11

^^'

¶12

SEgOND CIVIL _APPE.AL UrjDEB^EGTIQH AQO QF THE CIVIL PROCED-URE

¶13

CODE

¶14

APPEAL. VALUATION As valu®d:-tothe trial court.

¶15

COURT TEE Rs 90/- as paid in the First appeal.

¶16

AGAINST THE JUBGMENT AND DECREE SAlED-2MiL2^Q5 PASSED BY TAB ...FOURTn ADDITIOMAL DISTBICT JUDQE IFAST^{TBAa<COURTl._finB2S.APUR^.uISTRICTSAHGUJA} W CI'/IL APPE^AL N0. 1 3-A/20Q3,ARISING_OUT^F. THE BUDGMtNTWD DfcCREE DATED OS>,J)5.20QO_J3ASSED BY THE FIRST CIVIL JUDGE CLASS-II A&SBIKAPUR Sl^IWL_SyiT NO.,^l-AZ1fi99. <u-

¶17

\ ^

¶18

S.A. No.345 of 2005 Page 1 of2

¶19

/^^\ f II."'1 1 °>i;J?h-., •^'L.>. -.><r'^" ^aiS-22

¶20

¶21

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶22

Second Appeal No.345 of 2005

¶23

Appellants

¶24

Ramdeo

¶25

2. Chhedilal

¶26

/e/'sus

¶27

Respondents 1. Chaturi

¶28

Sahodri

¶29

Rajmati

¶30

State of Chhattisgarh

¶31

(Second Appeal under Section 100 ofthe CPC)

¶32

Mr.J.S. Baraik, counsel forthe appellants.

¶33

Mr.Roshan Dubey, Panel Lawyerfor respondent Np.4/State.

¶34

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

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(5-9-2014)

¶37

This is second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.2.2005 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Ambikapur, in Civil Appeal No.13A/03, affirming the judgment and decree dated 8.5.2000 passed by the 1st Civil Judge Class-ll, Ambikapur, in Civil Suit No.61A/99, whereby the suit filed on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

¶38

As per plaint allegation, father of the appellants was owner of the property. In the year 1963 and 1965 by two sale deeds, land in question was tr^nsferred to respondent No.1 and deceased Lalji by Devnandan in whose name land was recorded in the year 1962. On the basis of alienation by father of the appellants, suit was filed in the yg'ar J 997 for declaration of title, cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction. Both the Courts below have arrived at a finding that suit was barred by limitation.

,f K

S.A.No.345of2005 Page2of2

¶43

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment & decree impugned.

¶44

As per Ex.P/1, property was sold by father of the appellants on 13.5.1958 to father of Devnandan and Devnandan was in possession of the property since 1958 and he was subsequently alienated the propertyto respondent No.1 and deceased Lalji.

¶45

As per oral and documentary evidence, the appellants were minor in the year 1958, but when they become major and even after attaining the age of majority they did not file civil suit within three years or within twelve years of such date of attaining the age of majority.

¶46

Consequently, 1 do not find any illegality in concurrent finding of fact of both the Courts below. The appeal being without substance is liable to -- —- —-————

¶47

be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ?

¶48

-- —- —-————

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

T.P. Sharma Judge

Ramdeo and Another v. Chaturi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdeo and Another v. Chaturi and Others

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

Vijay Laxmi Vs Radheshyam Gupta

Kedar Nath Sahu Vs Mohan Lal

Sushil Kumar Gupta and Anr. Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Chetanram Vs Lalcharan Ram and Others

Mahesh Rawat and Others Vs Rudra Prasad Yadav and Others

Shri Vikas Alias Vikas Sharma And Anr. Vs Shrinivas Sharma And Ors.