Dismissed

Smt. Usha Dixit and Ors. v. Anil Kumar Ghosh Deadthr.Legal HEIRandOR

Chhattisgarh HC11 Oct 2017FA/17/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order approves a compromise decree in two appeals involving disputes over sale deeds. The court validated a settlement agreement where parties agreed on property allocation and possession rights, ordering a decree accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Approval of a common compromise decree allocating property shares and confirming non-interference clauses under the Samjhotanama.

Smt. Usha Dixit and Ors. Vs Anil Kumar Ghosh Deadthr.Legal… — Partition | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

FA No. 17 of 2011

¶5

(Arising out of judgment/order dated 16.12.2010 in Civil Suit No.31A/2006 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Bilaspur)

¶6

Smt. Usha Dixit, W/o Dr. Ashok Dixit, aged about 42 years, R/o Arvind Marg, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG)

¶7

Prem Kumar Bakshi S/o Bakshi Gurdev Singh Punjabi, aged about 59 years, R/o B-30, Kranti Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG)

¶8

Ram Milan Tiwari S/o Y.D. Tiwari, aged about 44 years, R/o Indira Vihar, S.E.C.L. Colony, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG)

¶9

---- Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

Anil Kumar Ghosh, (dead) S/o Late Abhaychandra Ghosh, through legal representative Smt. Chhaya Ghosh, W/o Late Anil Kumar Ghosh, aged about 55 years, R/o Muktidham Chowk, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG)

¶12

Shishir Ghosh, S/o Late Abhaychandra Ghosh (dead) through legal representatives defendants No.1 to 7/respondents No.2 to 8:-

¶13

Smt. Saraswati Ghosh W/o Late Shishir Kumar Ghosh, aged about 56 years, R/o Navgram, P.O. Nagori, Tahsil Shivri, District Virbhumi, Calcutta.

¶14

Smt. Tapti Sarkar, W/o Pabir Kumar Sarkar, aged about 38 years, R/o Batra, P.O. Batra District Kurshidabad, Calcutta (West Bengal)

¶15

Smt. Punauti Mandal, W/o Utpal Mandal, aged about 35 years, R/o Ravadiya, P.O. Mahmand Bazar, District Virbhumi (West Bengal)

¶16

Smt. Prabhati Mandal W/o Sadhan Mandal, aged about 33 years, R/o Village Navgram, P.O. Nagori, District Virbhumi (West Bengal)

¶17

Smt. Mithu Mandal W/o Katik Mandal, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Jhaduwa, P.O. Nagori, District Virbhumi (West Bengal)

¶18

¶19

Inti Mandal, D/o Late Shishir Kumar Ghosh, aged about 24 years, R/o Navgram, PO Nagori, District Virbhumi (West Bengal)

¶20

Pradeep Ghosh S/o Lage Shishir Kumar Ghosh, aged about 27 years, R/o Village Navgam, PO Nagori, District Virbhumi (West Bengal)

¶21

---- Respondent

¶22

And

¶23

FA No. 116 Of 2011

¶24

Shishir Ghosh, S/o Late Abhaychandra Ghosh (Dead) through legal Representatives defendants No.1 to 7/respondents No.2 to 8 :-

¶25

Smt. Saraswati Ghosh W/o Late Shishir Kumar Ghosh, aged about 56 years, R/o Navgram, PO Nagori, Tahsil Shivri, District Virbhumi, Calcutta (West Bengal)

¶26

Smt. Tapti Sarkar W/o Pabir Kumar Sarkar, aged about 38 years, R/o Bhatra , P.O. Bhatra, District Kurshidabad, Calcutta W.B.

¶27

Smt. Punauti Mandal W/o Utpal Mandal, aged about 35 years, R/o Ravadiya, P.O. Mahmand Bazar, District Virbhumi, ( W.B.)

¶28

Smt. Prabhati Mandal W/o Sadhan Mandal, aged about 33 yeas, R/o Village Navgram, P.O. Nagori, District Virbhumi,( W.B.)

¶29

Smt. Midu Mandal W/o Katik Mandal, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Jhaduwa, P.O. Nagori, District Virbhumi, ( W.B.)

¶30

Inti Mandal Aged About 24 Years D/o Late Shishir Kumar Ghosh, R/o Navgram, P.O. Nagori, District Virbhumi ( W.B.)

¶31

Pradeep Ghosh S/o Late Shishir Kumar Ghosh, aged about 27 years, R/o Village Navgram, P.O. Nagori, District Virbhumi ( W.B.)

¶32

---- Petitioner

¶33

¶34

Anil Kumar Ghosh (Dead), S/o Late Abhaychandra Ghosh, through legal representative Smt. Chhaya Ghosh, W/o Late Anil Kumar Ghosh, aged about 55 years, R/o Muktidham Chowk, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG)

¶35

Smt. Usha Dixit W/o Dr. Ashok Dixit, aged about 42 years, R/o Arvind Marg, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG)

¶36

Prem Kumar Bakshi S/o Bakshi Gurudev Singh Punjabi, aged about 59 years, R/o B- 30, Kranti Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and

¶37

¶38

District Bilaspur (CG)

¶39

Ram Milan Tiwari S/o Y.D. Tiwari, aged about 44 years, R/o Indira Vihar, SECL Colony, Bilaspur, Tehsil and District Bilaspur (CG)

¶40

Smt. Indira Singh W/o Shri R.D. Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o Dabripara, Tahsil & District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶41

---- Respondent

¶42

For Respective appellants Mr. Prateek Sharma and Mr. Ravindra Sharma For Respondent No.1 Mr. Ravindra Agarwal, Advocate For Respondent No.5 Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate in FA No.116 of 2011

¶43

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶44

Order On Board By

¶45

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

¶46

11/10/2017

¶47

Heard.

¶48

The parties have moved applications under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC in both the appeals.

¶49

Since both the appeals are arising of out of one and the same decree, the applications shall be disposed of by this common order.

¶50

The suit was filed by the original plaintiff/respondent Late Anil Kumar Ghosh, now represented by his Legal Representative Smt. Chhaya Ghosh, for declaration of three separate sale-deeds dated 23.12.2004 in favour of appellants in FA No.17 of 2011

¶51

¶52

namely Usha Dixit, Prem Kumar Bakshi and Ram Milan Tiwari, as null and void. The suit has been decreed by the impugned judgment.

¶53

FA No.116 of 2011 has been preferred by the original defendant late Shishir Ghosh, the vendor of the above three sale-deeds, represented through his legal representatives. Shishir Ghosh had also sold an additional area admeasuring 3130 sq. ft. in favour of Ms. Indira Singh on 30.3.2006. Ms. Indira Singh was not a party to the suit, however, her impleadment application has been allowed and she has been arrayed as respondent No.5 in this appeal.

¶54

Day before yesterday i.e. on 09.10.2017, Smt. Usha Dixit, Prem Kumar Bakshi, Ram Milan Tiwari and Smt. Chhaya Ghosh were present before this Court. This Court had verified from them as to the contents of “ Samjhotanama”.

¶55

Today, Smt. Chhaya Ghosh wife of original plaintiff Anil Kumar Ghosh, Pradeep Ghosh, one of the legal representative of Late Shishir Ghosh and Power of Attorney Holder on behalf of the appellants in FA No.116 of 2011 and Ms. Indira Singh, the newly added respondent No.5 in FA No.116 of 2011, are present.

¶56

Thus, all the parties to the suit have appeared and consented before this Court for approval of the respective “Samjhotanama” filed in both the appeals.

¶57

In order to give quietus to the dispute, which is continuing since 2005 onwards, this Court is of the opinion that the

¶58

¶59

“Samjhotanama” deserves to be approved and a compromise decree in both the appeals deserves to be passed in the following terms :

¶60

Respondent Smt. Chhaya Ghosh approves and consents to the three separate sale-deeds dated 23.12.2004 in favour of Smt. Usha Dixit (5700 sq.ft), Prem Kumar Bakshi and Ram Milan Tiwari (2400 sq. ft. each). These three purchasers have paid a sum of Rs.7,50,000/to Smt. Chhaya Ghosh as mentioned in para 5 of the “Samjhotanama”. She undertakes not to interfere in the possession of the above purchasers over their respective areas and not to raise any claim on the said areas in future.

¶61

Smt. Chhaya Ghosh also consents and ratifies the sale-deed dated 30.3.2006 for area 3130 sq. ft in favour of Ms. Indira Singh. Ms. Indira Singh has paid Rs. 5 lakhs to Smt. Chhaya Ghosh as mentioned in para 5 of the compromise deed notarised between Ms. Indira Singh and Smt. Chhaya Ghosh. Smt. Chhaya Ghosh undertakes not to interfere in Indira Singh's possession over the land and not to raise any claim over the area in future.

¶62

Out of the total area of 15090 sq. ft. bearing Khasra No.587/4 and 587/1, an area admeasuring 1460 sq. ft. is sill available on the spot, on which, Smt. Chhaya Ghosh shall enjoy right, title and interest to the exclusion of all other parties in both the appeals.

¶63

¶64

The purchasers and the legal heirs of late Shishir Ghosh (appellants in FA No.116/2011) shall not interfere in the possession of Smt. Chhaya Ghosh in the above stated 1460 sq. ft. of land nor shall raise any claim to that portion in future.

¶65

All the parties to the suit shall bear their respective costs.

¶66

It is ordered accordingly. A common compromise decree be drawn in the above stated terms.

¶67

The applications under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC filed in both the appeals are disposed of. Consequently, both the appeals are also disposed of in the above stated terms.

¶68

Sd/- Sd/-

¶69

Judge Judge

¶70

(Prashant Kumar Mishra) (Arvind Singh Chandel)

¶71

Shyna

Smt. Usha Dixit and Ors. v. Anil Kumar Ghosh Deadthr.Legal HEIRandOR

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Usha Dixit and Ors. v. Anil Kumar Ghosh Deadthr.Legal HEIRandOR

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

Thaneshwar Vs Sanju and Anr.

Smt. Vidyavati Singh Vs Harvinder Singh and Ors.

Smt. Vidyavati Singh Vs Smt. Shakuntala Sinha and Ors.

Shyam Lal Agrawal Vs Firm Mahavir Trading Company

Shyam Lal Agrawal Vs Frim Mahavir Trading Company

Rehana Parveen Vs Shahjad Khan