Dismissed

Radha Bai v. Netram

Chhattisgarh HC11 Mar 2019SA/267/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The appellant challenged findings that the suit land was joint family property with no partition. The court held as it was a question of fact and no partition relief was claimed, the appeal was devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed in limine without pronouncing the opposite sides' arguments.

Radha Bai Vs Netram — Partition | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

SA No. 267 of 2003

¶4

Radhabai, aged about 50 years, W/o Ramcharan Mahaar, R/o Village Kherkheda, Jheepatola, Tahsil & Dist. - Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Appellant/Plaintiff

¶6

Versus

¶7

Netram, aged about 35 years, S/o Bhav Singh, Caste- Mahar.

¶8

Dashrath, aged about 30 years, S/o Bhav Singh, Caste- Mahar.

¶9

Radhiyabai, aged about 32 years, D/o Anjori, Caste- Mahar.

¶10

Johan, aged about 40 years, S/o Mayaram, Caste- Mahar.

¶11

(dead) Bhav Singh, S/o Dhanaji, Caste- Mahar.

¶12

Udayram, aged about 36 years, S/o Ramdayal.

¶13

Jageshwari, aged about 33 years, D/o Ramdayal. All R/o Village Kherkheda, P.O.- Chinauri, Tahsil Charama, Dist.Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

State of Chattisgarh, through the Collector, Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

----Respondents/Defendants

¶16

For Appellant/Plaintiff : Mr. Vishnu Koshta, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

¶18

11.03.2019

¶19

Heard on the question of admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the plaintiff/appellant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth “CPC”).

¶20

The Plaintiff i.e. Radhabai filed a civil suit against the defendants claiming declaration of title, permanent injunction and recovery of possession and for declaring the sale deed dated 22/12/1988 as void and inoperative. The trial Court partly decreed the suit holding that the sale deed dated 22/12/1988 is void to the extent of 1/4th share of the plaintiff and she is in possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 257/3 with an area of 10 decimal, and to that extent the trial Court restrained the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession. Plaintiff preferred first appeal before

¶21

the first appellate Court but she remained unsuccessful as her appeal was dismissed which led her to file this second appeal under Section 100 of CPC.

¶22

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that both the Courts below are concurrently unjustified in not decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in toto by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to record and gives rise to substantial question of law for determination.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff, considered his submissions and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶24

The suit land is situated at village Kherkheda, Tahsil - Charama, with a total area of 10.71 acres was originally owned by late Shri Anjori. The plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 3 as well as defendants No. 6 & 7 are successors in interest of late Shri Anjori. Admittedly, defendants No. 1 to 3 sold a part of the suit land with an area of 1.47 acres by registered sale deed to defendant No. 4 on 22/12/1988 which led to the filing of the suit in which the trial Court has held that the sale deed executed by defendants No. 1 to 3 & 5 in favour of defendant No. 4, to the extent of plaintiff's share i.e. 1/4th is void and inoperative. The trial Court further held that the plaintiff is in possession of 10 decimal of land by constructing house and badi and granted decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction in her favour, but the fact of prior partition between the parties as set up by plaintiff was not accepted by the trial Court as well as by the first appellate Court, finding lack of evidence quo the fact of partition between the parties and holding that the suit land is joint family property of the

¶25

parties and therefore, declaration and injunction with regard to the joint family property cannot be granted to the plaintiff.

¶26

The concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below that partition has not taken place between the parties and that it is joint family property is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on record and I do not find any perversity or illegality in that, particularly when no relief of partition was claimed by the plaintiff, as such, no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal for determination.

¶27

Accordingly, the second appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed in limine without noticing to the other side.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(Sanjay K. Agrawal)

¶30

Judge

¶31

Harneet

Radha Bai v. Netram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha Bai v. Netram

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

Nanki (Died) Through Lrs. Aaju Ram Vs Yashwant Kumar

Kedarnath Dubey and Others Vs Chandravati and Others

Santram Vs Smt.Shanti Bai (Died) through Legal Heirs

Gangaram Vs Kanakram and Another

Ramlal Vs Rohidas and Others

Narayan Dead Through Lrs Vs Parma alias Parmanand