This second appeal challenged findings that suit property, originally purchased by the brothers' father, fell in defendant No. 1's share after partition. The High Court upheld lower courts' findings as fact-based and non-perverse, dismissing the appeal against the plaintiff.
Second appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
SA No. 106 of 2004
Bhagela, aged about 55 years S/o Late Shri Sarha, Resident of Village Chanderi, P.H. No. 11, R.I. and Tahsil Simga, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant/Plaintiff
Versus
Both Residents of Village Chanderi, R.I. & Tahsil Simga, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
----Respondents/Defendants
| For Appellant |
: Mr. M.D. Sharma, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For Respondents No. 1 & 2 | : Mr. Anand Ku. Gupta, Advocate |
| For State |
: Ms. Shivali Dubey, Panel Lawyer |
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board
05.08.2019
answered in this plaintiff's second appeal state as under:
“Whether the findings are perverse as the pleading
were absent claiming the property to be the sole property of defendant which devolved on them by partition?”
(For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status and ranking shown in the suit before the trial Court.)
2
father namely Sarha, in his lifetime, in the name of all three brothers from Budhiyarin by a registered sale deed dated 17/01/1957.
3
below holding that the suit property is a part of the land which fell in the share of defendant No. 1 after partition, is perverse and contrary to record and as such, it deserves to be set aside.
11.Learned trial Court did not accept the plea of the plaintiff and returned a finding that the suit property, in which partition has already taken place, fell in the share of defendant No. 1 therefore, he is in possession of the suit property and dismissed the civil suit filed by the plaintiff, which was agreed upon by learned first appellate Court. As such, the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below holding that the suit property, after partition, fell in the share of defendant No. 1 is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. The question of law, so framed in this second appeal, is answered in favour of defendant No. 1 and against the plaintiff.
4
12.Accordingly, the second appeal deserves to be and is hereby
dismissed. No order as to cost(s).
13.A decree be drawn up accordingly.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Harneet
2 issues framed by the court
Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding partition and ownership of suit property are perverse?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to joint possession over suit property allegedly devolved by partition to defendant No. 1?
Bhagela
Motilal
Shukalu
State of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
