Allowed

Batai and Anr. v. Muthu Ram and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC9 Sept 2014SA/409/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal under Section 100 CPC, deciding the substantial question of law in the negative. The appellate court was not justified in reversing the trial court's dismissal of a partition suit without addressing insufficient court fees. The case is remitted to the trial court for appropriate considerations.

What did the court decide?

Appellate judgment set aside. Case remitted to the trial court for providing opportunity to plaintiffs to specify claims regarding lands sub judice before revenue courts and to value property and pay

Batai and Anr. Vs Muthu Ram and Ors. — Partition | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

-/’ i; \\\\\§\0\\\\\0\015696^“M / cFQ . «mmlv

¶2

IN TH ? HIGH CURTO OF JUDICATURE^A T JABAULP SECOND APPEAL No ; 430 OF 1999.“”“m‘ UNERD SECTION 10 0 C.C‘P APPEANLLTS: 1. Batai son of Bhulan^Uraon , Defendants: age d 48 years. 2 . Moti son o£ Bhulan Uraon, aged 35 yers,a Ba n a Both residentsof Gram P.S. an& Sub Tahsil Shker=ahi , garh, Tah. Kusumi (Samri), Distric t Sarguja, M.P.

¶3

V/s

¶4

R ES PDENTSON : 1. Muthu Ram son of Dhanera,m Planti£s:i£ agea 4 5 years, r/"r K 2. Bitul sonoE—Qba ne ,/Llraon, aged 42 years , 3. Badshah son of Dh ane Uraon, aedg 2 5 years,^, 4., Jidhan son of Deongth, aged 35 years, 5. Smt. Lakhi Bali. widow o£ Kunwar Sai, aged 3O years/x 6. Siyambar son of Late Keanwer’^w g Sai, ageii 8 years, Mirio x, through natural guard a mother Lakhi Bai widow KunWar’s ai ‘ All res idenlts of^I Gr a

¶5

IN ‘IHE; HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPU SECOND APPEAL No. A103 OF 1999”. “WW

¶6

1999”. “WW

¶7

UNDER SECTION 100 C.P£.

¶8

APPE LLAN TS : l. Batai son of Bhulan Uraon, Def end ants^: aged 48 years, 2. Moti son of Bhulan Uraon, aged 35 years, Both residentsof Gram P.S. and Sub Tahsil Shahkerm garb, Tah. Kusumi (Samri), District Sarguja, M.P.

¶9

V/s

¶10

it?bN gj-^2(9)W §Zt ”$155 x $9‘q \i‘“ 0° W {s‘ ”l \vggr;

¶11

RES PONDEPTé: l t Muthu Ram son of Dhaneram, P i aintif ;E s z aged 45 years^, \I t ~ w» , ., o. , ”g.A“, ears^{resident ofvil1age Bada,} A-ged^{abwt 35} NmShPQSt offlgg^{8/0Dlipadlh, Lime} Biml’^{Police Statlon} Shznkar’garh, District^Balrampur. Ramanmgam (CG) aged 25 years, 4 . Jicihan son of Deongth , aged 3 5 year^s , 5. Smt. Lakhi Ba’i wioow o£ Kunwar Sai, aged 3G year§,, 6. Siyambar son of Late K‘dnwar Sai, ageti 8 years, Mi n thr ough natur a1 guar d Kunwar s a’i ‘ All residents o£‘ Gram

¶12

P.S. and sub Tahsi]. Shankergarh Tahsil‘ Kusumi, (Samri), Distt. Sarguja. M.P. Defendant NMgc‘gtte‘JEWV ._\¢C 'v‘I‘ ’V^“Res wit w 7 State of Chhattisgarh a? a? w v; Through^- Collector Surguja (CG) Q N ® 1VIE€JMORAN1T>UM OF SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE: OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED 5.1.99 PASSED BY SECOND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AMBIKAPUR (SHRI B.K.JATAV) IN CEVIL APPEAL No.6-A/94 REVERSENG THE JUDGIVENT AND DEGREE DATED 23.1.1 994 PASSED BY THIRD CIVIL JUDGE CLASS EMBIKAPUR IN CIVIL SUIT N0.60-A/88 (MUTHU RAM V/S BATAI RAM ANDO'I‘HERS)

¶13

CLAIM IN SECOND APPEAL - Rs.460/COURT FEES PAxD - Rs.46/-.

¶14

The appellants-de£endants 1 and 2 being aggrieved by the reversing Judgment and Decree afaresaid (impugned), beg to prefer this appeal inter alia on the following facts and substantial questions of law:-

¶15

¶16

PS.. and Sub Tahsil Shankergarh Tahsii Kusumi, (,Samri) Dstt.i sarguja. M‘P ~

¶17

¥ rvNAAa‘XN/x State of Madhya Pradesh J through Collector S3arguj,a M,P. I , I ® MESIMORANUME) OF SONDEC APPEAL UNDER SECONTI 100 OF TEH CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DEGRE E DATED 5.1.99 PASEDS BY SECOND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE , AME IKAPUR (SHRI B.K.JATA)V IN CIVIL APPEAL No.6-A/94 R EVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 2.99431.1 PASSED BY THRDI CIVIL JUDGE CLASS II AMEIKAPUR IN CIVIL SU IT No.6o—A/88 (MUTHU RAM V/S BATAI RAM ARNDO'I‘HES)

¶18

CLAIM IN SECOND ADPEAL - Rs.46/-0 COURT Ems pAID ~ Rs.46/-.

¶19

The appllant-defendantesS 1 and 2 begin aggrieved by the reversing Judgment and Decree aforesaid (impugned). bge to pre£er this appeal inter alia on the following £acts and subtantials quetionss of law:-

¶20

FTSAC

¶21

HIGH COI IRT OF CHHATTISGARH RII ASPIJR Second Appeal No.409 of 1999 APPELLANTS/: 1. Batai (Defendants) 2. Moti Versus RESPONDENTS/: 1. Muthu Ram (Plaintiffs) 2. Bitul (Died) through LR (a)^Naresh 3. Badshah 4. Jidhan 5. Smt. Lakhi Bai 6. Siyambar 7. State of Chhattisgarh {Second^{appealunderSection100oftheCodeofCivilProcedure,1908}}

¶22

Present:

¶23

: Mr. V.K. Pandey, counsel for the appellants.

¶24

Mr. A.N. Bhakta, counsel for respondents^No.1to6.

¶25

Mr. Mahesh Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent^No.7.

¶26

Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J

¶27

ORDER (1^{0—9—2014)}

¶28

Present second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC against the judgment & decree dated 5-1-1999 passed by the 2m Additional District Judge, Ambikapur in Civil Appeal No.6-A/1994 reversing the judgment & decree dated 23-1-1994 passed^{bythe3mCivilJudgeClass-II,Ambikapurin} Civil Suit No.60-A/1988, has^{beenadmittedforconsiderationonthefollowing} substantial question of law:^-

¶29

Whether the 15‘ appellate Court, while reversing the finding of the trial court, was justified in not considering the question of insufficient court fees affixed by the plaintiffs?

Page 2 of 3

S.A.No.472/1 999

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Both the judgments^&decreesand records perused.

¶35

At the outset, as per pleadings^ofthe parties, parties^{areco-ownersofthe} property, previous^{partitionwaseffectedbetweenthepartiesunilaterallyand} unequal partition has^{beeneffected.} Present appellants^{haveallegedintheir} written statement thattsik^{housesarestandinguponthe} property^indispute. The appellants have^{notmadevaluationofaforesaidhousesforpartitionand} have not affixed court fees. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the trial Court has^dismissed the suit, but the appellate Court^has reversed the judgment^{anddecreeofthetrialCourtanddecreedthesuit.}

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the parties have admitted that six housesi are standing upon the land in dispute, but the plaintiffs^{havenotvaluedtheirclaimforpartitionofaforesaidhousesandhave} not paid proper court^feesi

¶37

.5. On the other hand, learned counsel for^respondents No.1 to 6 opposes the . >

¶38

appeal and submits that?^{housesareconstructeduponthe} agricultural land which has not been d ,^{therefore,the} plaintiffs^{arenotrequiredtovalue} the land on the basis f

¶39

Undisputedly, as p e Y vi ence^{ofboththeparties,} parties^{haveconstructed} houses and are residing^there. The houses constructed^arenotforthe profit of agricultural land or, forticonvenience^{ofagriculture,} but for convenience^of the parties for their^residence. Even otherwise, in case of partition^ofhouses v

¶40

standing upon any land, parties^{arerequiredtovaluethepropertyandpay} court fees which^{hasnotbeenconsideredbythelowerappellateCourt.} l w ,

¶41

As per claim of the plaintiff this is a case of^unequal partition^{attheinstance} of revenue authoriti e d ing three lands bearing^{KhasraNos.554,555&} 586, but as per the r med, the plaintiffs^{haveclaimedrelieffor} partition

¶42

Page 3 of 3

¶43

S.A.No.472/1 999

¶44

of all the Iands inc!udin‘g houses standing upon the lands which has not been specified in th The plaintiffs are required to specify in the pleading relating to h i and claim of partition in the houses and also the claim of partition rel I ng to Khasra Nos.554, 555 & 586 which were not subject matter of p a i onbefore the revenue courts, and their share upon Khasra Nos 554 555 & 586 and claimed partition but the entire claim before the CIVII Court was not maintainable. In case of unequal partition and majority l. - of claim by revenue i s“ such order is appealable or reviewable before the revenue courts.

¶45

Consequently, the substantial question of law formulated for the decision of i i l this appeal is decided as negative.

¶46

ln the light of fnding o‘n the substantial question of law the appeal deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed Judgment & decree dated 5 1 1999 passed^{bythe2“AdditionalDistrictJudge} Ambikapur in CiVil Appeal No 6 A/ 1994 are set aSIde ye case is remitted back to the trial Court for prOVIding opportunity to the plaintiffs/respondents and also opportunity to the partiesⁱⁿ the light of aforesaid observation

¶47

Parties shall remain in attendance before the trial Court on 29-10-2014.

¶48

Soma

¶49

Sdl— T. P. Sharma Judge

Batai and Anr. v. Muthu Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Batai and Anr. v. Muthu Ram 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

Mittulal Vs Divisional Eng. Mpeb and Anr.

Smt. Gendi and Ors. Vs Sodhiram and Ors.

Chetanram Vs Lalcharan Ram and Others

Ved Prakash Sharma Vs Asha Devi and Others

Kanhaiyalal Vs Ghanshyam andORS.

Tholma and Others Vs Suganram and Others