In a second appeal, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appeal challenging a decree declaring a 1972 mutation entry null and void. The bench affirmed lower courts' findings of fact regarding no partition and natural justice breaches.
Second appeal dismissed; original decree regarding nullity of mutation and joint property status remains.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Second Appeal No.55 of 2005
Paharu aged 55 years S/o Sukul Satnami, R/o Barramuda, Tah. Katghora, Dist. Korba (CG)
---- Appellants/Defendant
Versus
Itwaru Ram, Aged about 35 years, S/o Samaru, R/o Bharramuda (Mohariya Muda), Tahsil Katghora, Dist-Korba (CG)
---- Respondent
For Appellant/Defendant : Mr.H.V.Sharma, Advocate For Res./LR's of the Plaintiff : Ms Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board
22/07/2019
“Whether both the learned Courts below exceeded their jurisdiction in passing the decree declaring the mutation No.145 dated 14.05.1972 as nullity ?”
[For the sake of convenience, the parties would be
2
father and Sukul, the defendant's father and the suit property belonged to them and no partition was taken place between them during their life-time. On behalf of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 was managing the suit land by giving share of crop after harvesting to the plaintiff, which he did not give to the plaintiff on 4.12.2001 i.e. for the year 2001 and the plaintiff came to know that the suit property was recorded in the defendant's name on 24.3.1972, against which, the plaintiff preferred appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, in which he remained unsuccessful leading to filing of the suit for declaring the mutation entry to be void and for declaration of title, partition and separate possession.
3
which, this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the appellant/defendant, in which substantial question of law has been framed by this Court, which has been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.
appellant/defendant, would submit that both the Courts below were absolutely unjustified in holding that mutation entry dated 14.5.1972 is null and void. He would further submit that additional substantial questions of law are involved in the present second appeal which may be framed.
4
do not find any further substantial question for determination of this second appeal. Accordingly, the prayer for additional substantial questions of law is hereby rejected.
1 S.A. No.350/2002, decided on 6.2.2019
5
specific conclusion that there was no partition during life-time of the plaintiff's and the defendant's father and therefore, the plaintiff and the defendant both being sons of Sukalu and Sukul respectively, each of them are entitled for 1/2 share in the suit property and further held that mutation dated 14.5.1972 was done in breach of principle of natural justice following para-12 of statement of defendant-Paharu, as such, the finding of fact recorded by two Courts below holding that there was no partition between the plaintiff's and the defendant's father and the suit property is joint family property and mutation was done in violation of principle of natural justice is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K.Agrawal) Judge
B/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower courts exceeded jurisdiction in declaring mutation No.145 dated 14.05.1972 as nullity.
Whether the property remains joint family property without lifetime partition between the fathers of the parties.
Whether the mutation proceedings violated principles of natural justice and justification for dismissing the second appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Banso (died) through his LR's v. Birsay and othersReferred¶29
(See Banso (died) through his LR's v. Birsay and others)
S.A. No.350/2002, decided on 6.2.2019Referred¶31
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Paharu
Itwaru Ram
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Sanjay K. Agrawal
Parties & counsel
