Dismissed

Nohri Bai v. Lavkush Mishra and Another

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2020SA/144/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court. The court held that the findings regarding the execution of the sale deed and the requirement to seek cancellation and pay court fees were based on evidence and not perverse. Thus, it found no merit in the appeal. The appeal was dismissed i

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed in limine without notice to the other side.

Nohri Bai Vs Lavkush Mishra and Another — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Second Appeal No.144 of 2010

¶5

Nohri Bai D/o Late Baisakhu, Caste Bargah, aged
about 40 years, R/o Village Ghadganwa
Gajmarwapara, Tahsil Khadganwa, Dist. Korea (CG)

¶6

---Appellant/Plainitff

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Lavkush Mishra, S/o. Sumant Mahraj Mishra, aged about 45 years, Resident of Village Charwaridand, P.S. & Tahsil Khadganwa, District Korea (CG)

¶9

2. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Baikunthpur, District Korea (CG)

¶10

---Respondents/Defendants

¶11

For Appellant/Plaintiff:

¶12

Mr.Sakti Raj Sinha, Advocate
For Respondent No.2:Dr.Veena Nair, Dy.A.G.

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

15/09/2020

¶16

1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken up through video conferencing.

¶17

2. Heard this second appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff on admission and formulation of substantial question of law.

¶18

3. By the impugned judgment and decree, the first appellate Court has dismissed the appeal

¶19

¶20

preferred by the appellant/plaintiff affirming
the judgment and decree of the trial Court
dismissing the suit.

¶21

4. Mr.Sakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the
appellant/plaintiff, would submit that both the
Courts below have committed legal error in not
granting decree by declaring the sale deed dated
20.2.95 (Ex.D-2) executed by the plaintiff and

¶22

her mother in favour of defendant No.1 as null
and void, it was forged and fabricated sale
deed, which was never executed by the plaintiff
and her mother in favour of defendant No.1, as
such, findings recorded by both the Courts below
are perverse and the appeal involves substantial
question of law for determination.

¶23

5. The suit property was originally held by

¶24

Baishahu. He died leaving his widow Munni Bai and daughter i.e. plaintiff-Nohri Bai, they sold the suit property on 20.2.95 (Ex.D-2) for cash of ₹ 20,000/- in favour of defendant No.1 and delivered peaceful possession and in their presence, name of defendant No.1 was recorded in revenue records. Plaintiff's mother Munni Bai died on 5.6.2004 and thereafter the plaintiff filed the suit on 14.6.2005 for declaration of

¶25

¶26

title, permanent injunction and for declaring
the sale deed dated 20.2.95 (Ex.D-2) as null and
void, which was dismissed by the trial Court
holding that the plaintiff being party to sale
deed ought to have sought cancellation of sale
deed and ought to have paid ad-valorem court
fees on sale amount and also held that execution
of sale deed by the plaintiff and her mother in

¶27

favour of defendant No.1 has been proved as
witnesses to sale deed Jambala Singh (DW-2) and
Jailal (DW-3) both have been examined, as such,
title has been passed in favour of defendant
No.1 and that finding has been upheld by the
first appellate court in appeal preferred by the
appellant/plaintiff.

¶28

6. The plaintiff being party to sale deed ought to
have sought cancellation of sale deed and ought
to have paid ad-valorem court fees on sale
amount in view of the provisions contained in
Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, 1870 and
further that execution of sale deed by the
plaintiff and her mother Munni Bai has been
proved by witnesses to sale deed i.e.Jambala
Singh (DW-2) and Jailal (DW-3), as such,
findings of two Courts below about the suit

¶29

¶30

being not properly constituted as cancellation
of sale deed was not sought by the plaintiff and
ad-valorem court fees has not been paid on sale
amount and similarly execution of sale deed by
the plaintiff and her mother in favour of

¶31

defendant No.1 held to be duly proved are
finding of fact based on evidence available on
record, which is neither perverse nor contrary

¶32

to record. I do not find any perversity or
illegality in the said finding and even I do not
find any substantial question of law for
determination of this second appeal.

¶33

7. Accordingly, the second appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed in limine without notice to other side.

¶34

 Sd/-

¶35

(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
 JUDGE

¶36

B/-

Nohri Bai v. Lavkush Mishra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nohri Bai v. Lavkush Mishra and Another

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

Puranik Chandrakar Vs Jivrakhan Chandrakar (Dead) Through Lrs.

Ramgarib Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Radheshyam Vs Shiv Prasad and Others

Purshottam Singh Thakur Vs Chandra Shekhar and Another

Alok Shrivastava Vs Aditiyanarayan and Another

Kanhaiya Lal Sahu Vs Lakhan Lal