Dismissed

Yuman Kumar Kashyap v. Bhagwat Yadav

Chhattisgarh HC20 Sept 2017WP227/97/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the trial court's dismissal of defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The petitioner argued oral sale agreements violated Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The High Court upheld the trial court's view that title transfer is a factual matter for evidence.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impugned order dated 20.12.2016 set aside; trial court's order upheld.

Yuman Kumar Kashyap Vs Bhagwat Yadav — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WP227 No. 97 of 2017

¶4

Yuman Kumar Kashyap S/o Sadhuram Kashyap Aged About 35 Years Occupation Farming & Shopkeeper, R/o Raipur Barampuri, Near Hanuman Mandir Down To Budha-Talab, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) ................(Defendant)

¶5

Gopi Krishna S/o Sadhuram Kashyap, Aged About 40 Years Occupation Farming & Shopkeeper, R/o Raipur Barampuri, Near Hanuman Mandir Down To Budha-Talab, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ................(Defendant)

¶6

Pradhuman S/o Sadhuram Kashyap, Aged About 38 Years Caste Kurmi, Occupation Farming, R/o Podi Raha, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) ................(Defendant)

¶7

Sashilata D/o Sadhuram, (Insane), Aged About 36 Years through her legal guardian brother Pradhuman Kumar, S/o Sadhuram Kashyap, R/o Podi Raha, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) ................(Defendant)

¶8

Ramabai W/o Sadhuram Kashyap Aged About 60 Years Caste Kurmi, Occupation Farming R/o Raipur Barampuri Near Hanuman Mandir Down To Budha Talab, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ................(Defendant)

¶9

Ramlila D/o Ayodhya Prasad, Aged About 40 Years Caste Kurmi, Occupation Labor, R/o Kachanda, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) ................(Defendant)

¶10

---- Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

Bhagwat Yadav S/o Bhukhau Yadav, Aged About 55 Years Occupation Farming, R/o Kachanda, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ...................(Plaintiff)

¶13

Deendayal Yadav S/o Bhukhau Yadav, Aged About 35 Years Occupation Farming, R/o Kachanda, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ...................(Plaintiff)

¶14

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, District Janjgir Champa, Head Office Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.).....(Defendant No. 7)

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

For Petitioners : Shri Somnath Verma, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Shri Anish Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Aditya Sharma, Panel Lawyer.

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

20/09/2017

¶20

(1) By the impugned order dated 20.12.2016, defendants' application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed, against which instant writ petition has been filed questioning the same.

¶21

(2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the plaintiffs have claimed that they have purchased the suit land for a sale consideration of ₹ 1,00,000/- whereas it is an oral sale and not followed by the registered instrument as required under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and, therefore, defendants' application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC ought to have been allowed by the trial Court.

¶22

(3) On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the writ petition and supported the order impugned.

¶23

(4) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection.

¶24

(5) The trial Court has rejected the defendants' application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC holding that it is a matter of evidence and it can be decided only after recording evidence of the parties whether the title has been transferred or not by the said sale, which is a matter of evidence to be considered and decided. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, having perused the order impugned, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has exercised its discretion judicially in rejecting the defendant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, in which I do not find any illegality warranting interferency by this Court in the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶25

(7) Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶26

Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶27

D/-

Yuman Kumar Kashyap v. Bhagwat Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yuman Kumar Kashyap v. Bhagwat Yadav

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

M/s Suresh Kumar Goyal Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Limited

Smt. Asha Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sunita Kathautiya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Damodar Das Vs N.M.D.C. and Ors.

Ghanshyam Lal Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Yamuna Bai and Ors. Vs the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.