Dismissed

Bije Lal Satnami (Died) through Legal Heirs v. Dilip Kumar and Others

Chhattisgarh HC22 Aug 2019SA/384/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the second appeal filed by legal heirs against a decree declaring title in favour of plaintiffs who purchased land from defendants via Ankalha (successor of Sugreev Bai). The court held no substantial question of law existed.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed as devoid of merit without notice to the other side.

Bije Lal Satnami (Died) through Legal Heirs Vs Dilip… — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Second Appeal No. 384 of 2005

¶5

Bijelal Satnami (Dead) through LRs:-

¶6

1A. Kamla Bai Deslahare, W/o Late Bejelal Satnami, aged about 70 years,

¶7

1B. Yadoram Deslahare, S/o Late Bejelal Satnami, aged about 38 years,

¶8

1C. Muktanda Deslahare, S/o Late Bejelal Satnami, aged about 40 years,

¶9

1D. Gopichand Deslahare, S/o Late Bejelal Satnami, aged about 35 years,

¶10

1E. Indu Bai Tandon, D/o Lat Bajelal Satnami, W/o Late Aranuj Singh, aged about 45 years,

¶11

All 1A to 1E are R/o Kastara Village Bortara, Tahsil – Gurur, District Durg (C.G.)

¶12

---- Appellants/defendant No. 2

¶13

Versus

¶14

Dilipkumar, S/o Lakhan Satnami, aged about 32 years,

¶15

Ramkumar, S/o Lakhan Satnami, aged about 26 years,

¶16

Shyamkumar, S/o Lakhan Satnami, aged about 25 years,

¶17

Rohitkumar, S/o Lakhan Satnami, aged about 21 years.

¶18

Sanjaykumar, S/o Lakhan Satnami, aged about 18 years,

¶19

All R/o Village Bortara, Tahsil – Gurur, District Durg (C.G.)

¶20

---- Respondents/plaintiffs

¶21

Ramdulari, D/o Juhumuklal Dewangarn, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Balod, Tahsil – Balod, District Durg (C.G.) (Defendant No. 1)

¶22

State of Chhattisgarh, through- District Collector Durg (C.G.)

(Defendant No. 5)

---- Respondents

For Appellants : Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondent No. 7/State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, PL for the State.

¶27

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶28

Order On Board

¶29

22/08/2019

¶30

(1) Heard on the question of admission and formulation of substantial question of law on this second appeal preferred by legal heirs of defendant No. 2 under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶31

(2) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendant No. 2 would submit that both the courts below were unjustified in granting decree in favour of plaintiffs by recording a finding, which is perverse to the record and that give rise to the substantial question of law for determination and, therefore, the appeal be admitted for final hearing.

¶32

(3) The suit property was admittedly held by Sugreev Bai. She died issuless. Her successor in interest Anakalha transferred the suit property in favour of one Supet and defendant No. 2- Ramdulari and in turn they transferred the suit property in favour of plaintiffs by registered sale deed dated 26.04.1985 (Ex.P-1) and the plaintiffs became title holder and came in possession of suit land.

¶33

(4) In a suit filed by plaintiffs/purchasers, the trial Court decreed the suit holding that plaintiffs are title holder of the suit land and entitled for decree of declaration of title, permanent injunction and in alternative possession, which the first appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

¶34

¶35

(5) Both the courts below have concurrently held that plaintiffs have proved their title

¶36

as they have purchased the suit land from Supet and defendant No. 2- Ramdulari and Supet and defendant No. 2 - Ramdulari purchased the same from Ankalha, successorin-interest of Sugreev Bai and further held that the defendant No. 2 has failed to prove

¶37

that the suit land was purchased by his father in the name of Sugrrev Bai as no document was produced & established in that behalf, the said finding recorded by two courts below is finding of fact based on material available on record and I do not find it either perverse or contrary to record no question of law much less substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.

¶38

(6) Accordingly, the second appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is

¶39

hereby dismissed without notice to the other side.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶42

D/-

¶43

Bije Lal Satnami (Died) through Legal Heirs v. Dilip Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bije Lal Satnami (Died) through Legal Heirs v. Dilip Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khorbahra Vs Jagat Ram (Died)

Omprakash Vs Rameshwar Rao and Others

Kishore Kumar Agrawal Vs Mahesh Garg

Vishnu Ram and Others Vs Smt.Radha Bai and Others

(Deleted) Anand Kumar (Dead ) Through Lrs., Vs (Deleted) Smt.Laxmi Bai

Shaniyaro Bai Vs Somari Bai