Dismissed

Tahaluram and Others v. Vishnuram

Chhattisgarh HC1 Aug 2019SA/343/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that concurrent findings of lower courts recording plaintiff's title via registered sale deed cannot be questioned when the original seller transferred title to intermediaries before the buyer.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed in limine without notice to the other side. No order as to cost(s).

Tahaluram and Others Vs Vishnuram — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

SA No. 343 of 2007

¶5

Tahaluram S/o Umraon Singh Chandrakar, Aged about 45 years R/o Village Arand, Tahsil & District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

A. Meena Bai W/o Shiv Kumar Chandrakar, Aged about 35 years, R/o Belsonda, Post Belsonda, Tahsil & District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

B. Reena Bai W/o Rajendra Chandrakar, Aged about 31 years, R/o Village Bharar, Post Jamgaon, Tahsil Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

C. Tukesh S/o Tahaluram Chandrakar, Aged about 25 years R/o Village Arand, Tahsil & District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Appellants/Defendants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Vishnu Ram (died) Through Lrs.

¶12

(a). Salik Ram S/o Late Vishnu Chandrakar R/o Kumharpara, Ward No. 18, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

(b). Punit Ram @ Puna S/o Late Vishnu Chandrakar R/o Arand, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

(c). Lala S/o Late Vishnu Chandrakar R/o Arand, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

(d). Jugbati Wd/o Late Vishnu Chandrakar (deleted).

¶16

(e). Rajiya D/o Late Vishnu Chandrakar W/o Narayan Chandrakar, R/o P.S. Beltukari, Masankudha, District Nayapara, Orissa.

¶17

(f). Urmila D/o Late Vishnu Chandrakar, W/o Ramnath Chandrakar, R/o Village Farfaud, Post Farfaud, Police Station Arang Mahanadi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

----Respondents/Plaintiffs

¶19

For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocates

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

01.08.2019

¶23

Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by defendant No. 1 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶24

Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the defendants would submit that both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in granting decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to record and gives rise to substantial question of law for determination in this second appeal.

¶25

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the defendants and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶26

The suit property originally belonged to defendant No. 1 – Tahaluram. He executed a sale deed dated 23/06/1981 in favour of Manbodhi Gada, Manbodhi, Kejmati and Ghasiram. Later on, Manbodhi Gada sold the suit property to plaintiff – Vishnu Ram by way of registered sale deed dated 25/02/1986 (Exhibit P-2) and thus, plaintiff came in possession of the suit property. Thereafter, when defendant No. 1 – Tahalu Ram tried to prevent the plaintiff from getting his name recorded in the revenue records, it led to the filing of civil suit by the plaintiff which was decreed by learned trial Court as well as the first appellate Court against which this second appeal has been preferred by the defendants.

¶27

¶28

Both the Courts below have concurrently found title of plaintiff over the suit land by considering the registered sale deed dated 25/02/1986 (Exhibit P-2). The claim of defendant No. 1 – Tahalu Ram is that he has not received full consideration from Manbodhi Gada, Manbodhi, Kejmati and Ghasiram. If the said claim made by defendant No. 1 is valid, his remedy is to file suit for consideration amount, but he cannot question the title over the suit land which has already been transferred in favour of Manbodhi Gada, Manbodhi, Kejmati and Ghasiram and thereafter, in favour of the plaintiff – Vishnu Ram. In that view of the matter, the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below are neither perverse nor contrary to record and as such, no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal.

¶29

Accordingly, this second appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine without notice to the other side. No order as to cost(s).

¶30

Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶31

Harneet

Tahaluram and Others v. Vishnuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tahaluram and Others v. Vishnuram

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

Dihalram Rajwar @ Balram Rajwar and Another Vs Ram Kumar and Others

Surij and Ors. Vs Smt.Jhitri and Ors.

Jaimangal and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shankar Prasad Vs Babu Bhai Dead Through Lrs

Asaduram and Others Vs Gandoram and Another

Dayaram @ Dinuram Vs Dilip Kumar