Dismissed

Rajesh and Ors. v. Smt. Punabai and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC11 Dec 2015WP227/874/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a petition filed by family members challenging a lower court order regarding the partition of a suit house. The court held that Section 54 of the CPC applies to undivided estates assessed to revenue payment, whereas Order 26 Rule 13 governs household partition, finding the lower court order proper.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, and petitioners were directed to approach the lower court for proceedings under Order 26 Rule 13.

Rajesh and Ors. Vs Smt. Punabai and Ors. — Partition | Chhattisgarh HC (2015)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WP227 No. 874 of 2013

¶4

Rajesh S/o Nohardas, aged about 40 years, R/o Satnamipara, Near Kuaa Chowk, Gurudwara Gali, Nandai, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G.

¶5

Tameshwar S/o Nohardas, aged about 34 years, R/o Satnamipara, Near Kuaa Chowk, Gurudwara Gali, Nandai, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G.

¶6

Hirendra S/o Nohardas, aged about 35 years R/o Satnamipara, Near Kuaa Chowk, Gurudwara Gali, Nandai, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G. (deleted, LRs. substituted as per Court order dated 09-07-2015)

¶7

3.a Smt. Anju Bai W/o Late Hirendra Kumar Banjare, aged about 36 years,

¶8

3.b Kitansh Kumar S/o Late Hirendra Kumar Banjare, aged about 13 years,

¶9

3.c Mansi D/o Late Hirendra Kumar Banjare, aged about 10 years,

¶10

3.d Jansi D/o Late Hirendra Kumar Banjare, aged about 8 years,

¶11

3.e Trishna D/o Late Hirendra Kumar Banjare, aged about 7 years,

¶12

3.b to 3.e being minor through mother Smt. Anju Bai, aged about 36 years, W/o Late Hirendra Kumar Banjare.

¶13

All R/o Satnamipara, Near Kuaa Chowk Gurudwars Gali, Nandai, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶14

Khelu S/o Nohardas, aged about 31 years, R/o Satnamipara, Near Kuaa Chowk, Gurudwara Gali, Nandai, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G.

¶15

Gopendra S/o Nohardas, aged about 28 years, R/o Satnamipara, Near Kuaa Chowk, Gurudwara Gali, Nandai, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G.

¶16

Jeetu S/o Nohardas aged about 25 years, R/o Satnamipara, Near Kuaa Chowk, Gurudwara Gali, Nandai, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G.

¶17

Appu S/o Nohardas, aged about 27 years, R/o Satnamipara, Near Kuaa Chowk, Gurudwara Gali, Nandai, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G.

¶18

Koushailya Bai W/o Rajiv Sen, R/o Naya Dhaba, Tahsil and Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G.

¶19

Nirmala W/o Sunderlal Bandhe, R/o Purana Dhaba, Satnami Para, Tahsil and Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G.

¶20

10.Anita Rajekar W/o Rajesh Rajekar R/o Village Kaldasa, Tahsil Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G.

¶21

---- Petitioners

¶22

Versus

¶23

Smt. Punabai W/o Mohanlal Banjare, aged about 44 years, R/o Satnamipara, Rajnandgaon C.G.

¶24

Sumitra D/o Mohan Banjare, aged about 27 years, R/o Satnamipara, Rajnandgaon C.G.

¶25

Surendra S/o Mohan Banjare, aged about 23 years, R/o Satnamipara, Rajnandgaon C.G.

¶26

Radhika D/o Mohan Banjare, aged about 19 years, R/o Satnamipara, Rajnandgaon C.G.

¶27

Amrika D/o Mohan Banjare, aged about 18 years, R/o Satnamipara, Rajnandgaon C.G.

¶28

---- Respondents

¶29

For Petitioners – Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondents 1 and 3 – Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate. For Respondents 2, 4 and 5 – None, though served.

¶30

Hon'ble Shri Justice Chandra Bhushan Bajpai

¶31

Order on Board

¶32

11/12/2015

¶33

Heard on motion.

¶34

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in brevity 'the Code') is applicable for partition of the one third of the suit house.

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as there is already appreciation in the judgment and decree that under Order 26 Rule 13 of the Code, the Court shall appoint a commissioner for the partition of the suit house as mentioned in Schedule B for assessment of one third share of the plaintiffs in the Court below; it further directed regarding the share decided on the facts and for its possession. Section 54 of the Code is for agricultural land. There is no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Court below on 08-11-2013. Hence, the petition being devoid of merit, the same may be dismissed as not maintainable.

¶36

For appreciation of the arguments advanced by the parties regarding hearing on motion of the petition, Section 54 of the Code are perused, impugned order dated 08-11-2013 and also judgment and decree passed by the Court below dated 15-04-1994 in Civil Suit No.56-A/91 are perused.

¶37

On due consideration, it is well settled that Section 54 of the Code is for an undivided estate assessed to the payment of revenue. From the material available on record, it cannot be said that the house in question belongs to an undivided estate accessed to the payment of revenue. Further point to note is

¶38

that the Court below in the impugned judgment and decree directed that as per provision of Order 26 Rule 13 of the Code, partition regarding suit house as mentioned in Annexure B will be performed.

¶39

On due consideration, the order passed by the Court below cannot be held as improper and illegal. Consequently, I am not inclined to interfere. The impugned order is well founded, hence, the petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed as not maintainable at the motion stage itself. However, it is observed that the petitioners if not applied earlier may pray before the Court below for the proceedings under Order 26 Rule 13 for division of the suit house of Schedule B according to law and also as per impugned judgment and decree.

¶40

With this appreciation, the petition is dismissed as not maintainable for the reasons mentioned above.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Chandra Bhushan Bajpai) JUDGE

¶43

Aadil

Rajesh and Ors. v. Smt. Punabai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh and Ors. v. Smt. Punabai 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

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Prabhu Prakash Ekka and Ors.

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Mamta Chaturvedi

Smt. Koushilya Gupta Vs Bijendra Sahu

Narendra Kumar Chandrakar Vs Kuluram Jain and Ors.

Gyan Ganga Education Acadamy and Ors. Vs Smt. Suman Dheer and Anr.

Milind B. Kelkar and Others Vs M. Murthy