The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a second appeal alleging imperfection in the trial and appellate courts' judgments. The court found evidence of prior partition and separate possession, concluding the appeal was devoid of merit due to suppression of facts and delay.
Second appeal dismissed at admission stage with 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.
L
\ ‘
7/2600
Second Aweal Noa QO
/<’&hu, S/oo BaiJnath, age
55 years, occupatlon - agri-
culture, R/m village - Batwah,i
—
Teh. Lundra, Dlstrlct
Sarguja (Chho)
VERS US
1;, Indra Kuhwar, W/o. Anjun‘
. age :75fyears,
g Dashrath Ram Soi./ Arjun,
K'anwar age .46 years;
'No.
IERS. of'DF'D; 1)_
x _
amjit’, s/o;‘Late Jhiitku, I
age 40 years,’ occupation—
agriculture, _
S/o. Late Jhltku,
(’Qntl,
age 3 5 years , occupation-
, :
agrlcubture ,
(LRS. of DFD. Now 2)
(ge State of M.P¢ Through
Collector, Sarguja ,
-
Amblkapur (MP
(Prof. mm)
SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. »
APPEAL VALUE}; AT RUPnEs 3ea/~
gem FEEs RUPEES 45l-oxmro
S.A. No.40 of 2000 Page 1 of3
\Q
‘HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR Second Aggeal No.40of2000
Appellant Plaintiff
Kodhu
Versus
Respondents Deenanfdts
Smt.lndra Kunwar
2 Dashrath Ram
(Seco nd Appeai‘ under Section100oftheCPC)
MAK‘Pd,Lrasa coynsel for the appellant . Noen ptresen for respondentsNo.1to4. Mrohan.Rs Dubey,PanelLawyerforrespondentNo.5/State.
(SB: Hon’ble Mr. TP Sharma, J.)
ORDER
(2-9-2014)
This t is secon d appeal against the jud‘gr-nent and decree dated 22000.9.2 passed by the District Judge, Ambikapur (Surguja), in Civil Appale No.41-A/1999, reversing the judgmentand decree. decreeing the suit for partition filed on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff dated 28.9f92 passed bythe3rdCivilJudgeClass—II,Ambikapur,inCivilSuit ’ ' No.14-A/89.
partitioned.BrotheroftheappellantnamelyArjunbehindthebackfiled an ajpplication for partitionbeforetherevenueCourtandsucceeded in gettihgvaluable.landandunequalshare.Onthebasisofsuchconduct of his brother Arjun, suit for partition and separate possessionwas
‘ .filediby the appellant.
\ .‘ \
S.A. No‘40of 2000 Page 2 of3
Q7 s.A. No.40of 2000 \ Page 3 of3
timebarred,however,remedywasavailabletotheappenant, but the appel‘anthasnotavailedsuchremedy.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant's delay in refraining from filing the suit constitutes a substantial question of law warranting special leave under Section 100 CPC.
Whether the evidence discloses a prior partition and separate possession rendering the second appeal devoid of merit.
Whether any other remedial course was available to the appellant prior to filing the present appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kodhuram
Smt. Indra Kunwar
Dashrath Ram
Ramjit
Thinti
The State of M.P. (Now C.G.)
T.P. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
