Dismissed

Smt.Sumitra Devi v. Somarsai (Died) through Legal HRs.

Chhattisgarh HC6 Aug 2019SA/341/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal under Section 100 CPC, filed by purchasers challenging a decree declaring a sale void based on inheritance rights in the Majhwar tribe, was dismissed. The court held that the underlying finding of fact regarding the widow's right to inherit was based on evidence and did not raise any substantial question of law.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the second appeal in limine without any order as to costs.

Smt.Sumitra Devi Vs Somarsai (Died) through… — Succession and Inheritance | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

SA No. 341 of 2004

¶5

Smt. Sumitra Devi, Aged 44 years, W/o Lali Kunwar.

¶6

Sabal Ram, Aged about 39 years, W/o Thadu Ram.

¶7

Both are Agriculturist, R/o Village Katinda, Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

---Appellants/Defendants No. 5 & 6

¶9

Versus

¶10

Ratkolhin @ Dhanmet Wd/o Sirdar (Deleted). ---- Plaintiff

¶11

Somarsai S/o Mundra (died) Through Lrs.

¶12

Bandhan S/o Somarsai, Aged about 50 years, R/o Village Katinda, Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Rungu S/o Baiga (died) Through Lrs.

¶14

A. Gurwar S/o Rungu, Aged about 50 years.

¶15

B. Jangu S/o Rungu, Aged about 45 years.

¶16

C. Narayan, S/o Rungu, Aged about 40 years.

¶17

All R/o Village Harmauha, Police Station/Tahsil/Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

Jhungu S/o Baiga, Aged 46 years, Caste Majhwar R/o Village Katinda, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶19

5. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Ambikapur, Sarguja,
Chhattisgarh. ----Defendants ---- Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. B.M. Rao, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ravindra Sharma and Mr. Malay Jain, Advoates
For State : Ms. Shivali Dubey, Panel Lawyer

¶20

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

¶21

06/08/2019

¶22

Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in

¶23

this second appeal preferred by defendants No. 5 and 6 (purchasers

¶24

¶25

of the suit land) under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶26

Mr. B.M. Rao, learned counsel for the defendants would submit that both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in holding that plaintiff, being the widow of Sirdar, is entitled to inherit the suit property and is therefore, entitled for declaration of title and possession of the suit land, in addition, declaring the sale deed dated 13/05/1993 as null and void, which gives rise to substantial questions of law for determination in this second appeal.

¶27

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

¶28

The suit property originally belonged to Sirdar, who had two wives namely Matkuriya and Ratkolhin. Matkuriya died and Sirdar also died issueless leaving behind his second wife Ratkolhin, who filed the civil suit for declaration of title and possession and for declaration of sale deed dated 13/05/1993, executed by defendants No. 2 and 3 namely Rangu and Jhangu in favour of defendants No. 5 and 6 namely Sumitra Devi and Sabalram i.e. appellants herein, to be null and void.

¶29

Both the Courts below have negatived the plea of the defendants that in 'Majhwar Tribe', a widow is not entitled to inherit the property of his late husband, as that custom was not pleaded and duly established by the defendants. Now, in this second appeal, it has been pleaded by the defendants that both the Courts below have erred in granting decree in favour of the plaintiff.

¶30

The two Courts below have concurrently held that defendants have failed to plead and establish that in 'Majhwar Tribe', a widow does not inherit the property of her husband after his death and have also held

¶31

¶32

that plaintiff is entitled to inherit the property of her deceased husband, therefore defendants No. 2 and 3, having no title over the suit land, were not entitled to sell the suit property in favour of defendants No. 5 and 6. The concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to record and does not give rise to any substantial question of law for determination in this second appeal.

¶33

The second appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed in limine . No order as to cost(s).

¶34

Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶35

Harneet

Smt.Sumitra Devi v. Somarsai (Died) through Legal HRs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Sumitra Devi v. Somarsai (Died) through Legal HRs.

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

Bhagela Vs Moti Lal and Others

Subhash and Others Vs Bahura Bai and Others

Itwari and Others Vs Karuna and Others

Hemao Devi Sahu Vs Saumya Deep Sharma @ Abhinav Sharma

Lakhan Lal and Others Vs Asharam and Another

Govind Lal Agrawal Vs Abdul Gafur