Dismissed

Kanhaiyalal v. Ghanshyam andORS.

Chhattisgarh HC9 Sept 2014SA/477/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the second appeal holding that the appellant is not an heir of the deceased. The court found no illegality in the lower courts' concurrent findings that two wives inherited the property instead of the nephew, supported by evidence from a previous suit.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission with no order as to costs.

Kanhaiyalal Vs Ghanshyam andORS. — Succession and Inheritance | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

INE‘HE HIGH CQUR’I‘ OF CHHPhTTIaHkRI-i 33E BILéSPUg .
second Appeal No. 4‘7’Lw/2001
’
A PPELLPsNT Kanhaiya lal aged 65 years S/o
PLAINT IFF
Maujlrag §a§g,43/g Village
Borasl/Tah Ehamdha Disu: Durg
(Mtp ) NOW (C G )
vmsus
/
/
RESPONDENT S Ghansnamy aged 31 years S/o
—Dm END§NT S
radeep aged 3O years s/o
Kun J‘ ”K ari .,
g esh BihEzri raged 23 years
’u
s/o njbihari .
'
'”.
4 p rakash aged 19 years s/o
Kunjbiha ri,
All are realdent of Village
rJsl/Tah 15h 43/ dEa Distt.
(Hopo) Now (CoGG)
. M P State (Now) C G Stat e
thro ugh~ - G01 l ectcr, mrg
Disd. mrg (C G.)
AP?EAL UNDm SETIéN 1‘90 0 ODE D CIVLL PROCEEURE
(Gww‘wM cu-(L; “30$ CQW wdwm W2

¶2

S.A. No.477 0f2001 Page 1 0f2

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH^ATBILASPUR Second Appeal^No.47?of2001

A ppenént ‘ ‘

Kanhaiya Lal

Versus

Respondents Ghanshyam Pradeep

¶8

Yogesh Bihari

¶9

Omprakash

¶10

M.P. State (ow)N^C.G.

¶11

(Second^{AppealunderSection100oftheCPC)}

¶12

M r.H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate^{withMrs.PreetiYadav,counselfor} the appellant. N one present for respondents^No.1to4. M r.Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Advocate General for respondent N o.5/State.

¶13

(S B: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma,^J.) ORDER

¶14

(10-9—2014)

¶15

Tshi is second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.20004. passed by the^5mAdditional District Judge, Durg, in Civil Apeaip No.5-A7,3/9 affirming the j udgment and decree^dated4.9.97 passed^{bythe6thCivilJudgeClass—Ii,Durg,inCiviiSuitNo.24~A/91.} As per plaint aiiegation, Bholaram, uncle of the appellant, died issueless leaving behind^onewidw o^{namelyJalwantin,whosoldsome} land as sole survingiv^{heirofdeceasedBholaram.ThereafterNathiya} ‘of

¶16

Bai who demonstrated herself^aswife deceased Bholaram^hassold th e la nd in dispute in favour of respondents No.1 to 4, which was wihoutt any right, propriety and title. After d eath of Jalwantin Bai, nepwhe of husband of Jalwantin Bai inherited the property. Nathiya Bia was not legally wedded wife of deceased Bholaram,^shemaybe concubine and the^appellant is only soel heir^{ofdeceasedBholaram} entitled to inherit the property.

¶17

S.A. No.477 of 2001 Page 2 of 2

¶18

“By filing written statement, the respondents^{havedeniedtheadverse} aILegation. \

¶19

Aflter providing opportunity^{ofhearingtothe} parties,^{thetriaiCourthas} dislmissed the suit and the Iower appellate Court^{hasdismissedthe}

¶20

appeaL

¶21

i have heard learned counsel^forthe parties^and perused^the judgment & :decree impugned, judgment^{&decreeofthetrialCourtandrecords} ofthe Courts beiow.

¶22

At the outset, both the Courts below have heaviiy reiied upon the document EX.D/1, plaint^of previous^{suitNo.51A/78tiledbeforethe3rd} Civil Judge Class-ll, Durg showing plaintiffs Jalwantin, Nathiya, the present^{appellantandoneAshwaniKumar.}

¶23

As per plaint allegation, after death of Bholaram, the property^was inherited by his two wives namely^{JalwantinBaiandNathiyaBai.The} present appellant is nephew of Bholaram. Two wives of Bholaram inherited the property^and were in possession. In para 5 of crossexamination of the present^{appellant,hehasspecificallyadmittingthe} filing of plaint and^{hissignatureoverthe} plaint.^{NathiyaBaiwaswifeof} deceased Bholaram^{andtheappellanthasnotinheritedthe} property left by Bholaram.

¶24

Considering the aforesaid pleading,^{boththeCourtsbelowhaveheld} that the appellant^{hasnotinheritedthe} property^{leftbyBholaramand} Jalwantin Bai & Nathiya Bai have inherited the property left by Bholaram.

¶25

ln the light of Ex.D/1 previous plaint^{filedbyJalwantin,} Nathiya, the present^{appellantalong} with one Ashwani Kumar, i do not find any

¶26

V illegality in concurrent^{findingoffactofboththeCourtsbelow.}

¶27

1. Consequently, the appeal^{beingdevoidofmerit} is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission itself. No order as to "^"

¶28

costs. .. _ Sd/—

¶29

"^" .. _ Sd/— T.P.^Sharma. Judge

Kanhaiyalal v. Ghanshyam andORS.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiyalal v. Ghanshyam andORS.

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

Batai and Anr. Vs Muthu Ram and Ors.

Tholma and Others Vs Suganram and Others