Partly allowed

Dwarika Prasad v. Bharat Lal

Chhattisgarh HC14 Nov 2019SA/503/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that courts below were correct in dismissing the suit as documents were unregistered. However, the Court granted the appellants liberty to file a fresh comprehensive suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs based on Anathula Sudhakar case law.

What did the court decide?

Appellants granted liberty to file a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs; second appeal disposed of.

Dwarika Prasad Vs Bharat Lal — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Second Appeal No. 503 of 2007

¶5

Dwarika Prasad, aged about 55 years, S/o Shri Damdi Lal

¶6

Purushottam (sinced deceased) through LRs:-

¶7

2.a Smt. Shushila Devi, W/o Late Purushottam Lal Soni, aged about 63 years,

¶8

2.b Ajay Kumar Soni, S/o Late Purushottam Lal Soni, aged about 45 years,

¶9

2.c Vijay Kumar Soni, S/o Late Purushottam Lal Soni, aged about 42 years,

¶10

2.d Vivek Kumar Soni, S/o Late Purushottam Lal Soni, aged about 34 years,

¶11

The appellant No. 2.a to 2.d are resident of Pendra, Tahsil & Police Station Pendra, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

2.e Smt. Sushma Soni, D/o Late Purushottam Lal Soni, W/o Neelratan Soni, Advocate, aged about 38 years, R/o Padmnabhpur, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)

¶13

2.f Smt. Pooja Soni, D/o Late Purushottam Lal Soni, W/o Rajendra Soni, aged about 30 years, R/o Sarju Bagicha, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶14

Shyamsunder, aged about 45 years, S/o Shri Damdi Lal, All Caste-Soni, R/o Pendra, Tahsila Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶15

----Appellants/Plaintiffs

¶16

Versus

¶17

Bharat Lal, aged about 35 years, S/o Shri Golai Soni,

¶18

Satya Prakash, aged about 49 years, S/o Shri Banarasidas,

¶19

Ramrishi, aged about 47 years, S/o Shri Banarasidas,

¶20

Suresh Kumar, aged about 45 years, S/o Shri Banarasidas,

¶21

Naresh Kumar, aged about 45 years, S/o Shri Banarasidas,

¶22

Ishwar Kumar, aged about 40 years, S/o Shri Banarasidas,

¶23

Bajranglal, aged about 39 years, S/o Shri Banarasidas,

¶24

Ashok Kumar, aged about 37 years, S/o Shri Banarasidas,

¶25

¶26

Pawan Kumar, aged about 35 years, S/o Shri Banarasidas,

¶27

Krishna Kumar, aged about 34 years, S/o Shri Banarasidas,

¶28

Number 2 to 10 Caste, Agrawal, All R/o Mauja Pendra, Tahsil Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶29

Smt. Maya Agrawal, aged about 53 years, wife of Namalum, …. Manendragarh, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶30

State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh), Through : The Collector, Distt- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶31

----Respondents/Defendants

¶32

For Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No.12/ State : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, PL.

¶33

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶34

Order On Board

¶35

14/11/2019

¶36

(1) Heard on the question of admission and formulation of substantial question of law of this second appeal preferred by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶37

(2) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that both the courts below have concurrently erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction by holding that documents Ex.P-1 & P-2 both are un-registered and unstamped documents whereas during pendency of the first appeal, documents Exs. P-1 & P-2 were duly stamped by impounding the documents, therefore, it ought to have been admitted into evidence and also ought to have been granted decree in favour of the plaintiff.

¶38

(3) The both the courts below have found that since the relinquishment deed (Ex.P-1) is an un-registered document, therefore, it is inadmissible in evidence, even though it is

¶39

¶40

stamped by impounding the documents before the first appellate Court and dismissed the suit, which appears to be correct view .

¶41

(4) At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that instant suit is a bare suit for permanent injunction simplicitor and, therefore, he may be granted liberty to file comprehensive suit for declaration of title and other consequential reliefs as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Anathula Sudhakar

¶42

1 DEAD . Vs. P. Buchi Reddy ( ) by Lrs. And others

¶43

(5) Since the instant suit, from which this appeal has arisen, was for permanent injunction only, the question of title was incidental, appellants/plaintiffs are at liberty to file comprehensive suit for declaration of their title and consequential reliefs.

¶44

(6) With the aforesaid observations, the second appeal stands finally disposed of. No cost(s).

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal)

Judge

D/-

1 (2008) 4 SCC 594

(1) Whether the first appellate Court was justified in granting decree in favour of the plaintiff ignoring the fact that erstwhile owner of the suit land Raja................... and his son.............. has already executed a title deed / sale deed dated 28.08.2002 (Ex.D-1) in favour of defendants No. 2 & 3, by recording a finding, which is perverse and contrary to the record ?

¶52

(2) Whether the first appellate Court was justified in not remitting the matter after holding that the permission for review was granted without affording opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff by virtue of provisions contained in Section 51 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code,

Dwarika Prasad v. Bharat Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dwarika Prasad v. Bharat Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhanu Ram Vs Mahar Singh (Died) Through Lrs.

Vishnu Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Chandra Shekhar Vs Shiv Shankar and Another

Lakhan Lal Vs Dilesiya Bai and Ors.

Smt.Pramila Gedam and Anr. Vs Manmohan Homne and Ors.

Smt Pramila Gadam and Others Vs Shiv Shankar Huamne and Others