Dismissed

Purshottam Singh Thakur v. Chandra Shekhar and Another

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2020SA/211/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal dismissed a second appeal filed by Purushottam Singh Thakur challenging the dismissal of his suit for declaration of title. The judge held the appeal devoid of merits and dismissed it in limine without notice to the other side, upholding the lower courts' finding regarding the nature of the sale deed.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed in limine without notice to the other side. No costs awarded.

Purshottam Singh Thakur Vs Chandra Shekhar and Another — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No. 211 of 2010

¶4

Purushottam Singh Thakur, Aged about 70 years, S/o
Late Shri Jodhan Singh Thakur R/o Suhela, Tahsil
Simga, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

 ---Appellant/Plaintiff

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Chandra Shekhar, Aged about 47 years, S/o Shri Jagannath Singh Baghel, R/o Village Bitkuli, Tahsil Simga, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondents/Defendants

¶10

 For Appellant :- Mr. M.D. Sharma, Advocate
 For State :- Dr. Veena Nair, Dy. A.G.

¶11

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

¶12

15/09/2020

¶13

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

¶14

2. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the CPC putting under challenge the impugned judgment and decree by which the first appellate Court

¶15

¶16

affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court
dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.

¶17

3.Mr. M.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the

¶18

appellant/plaintiff, would submit that the two
Courts below have committed illegality in
dismissing the suit holding that the sale deed
dated 19/06/1992 (Ex. D/1) executed by the
plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 is a real
sale deed and not a nominal sale deed executed for
the purpose of security of loan taken by the
plaintiff from defendant No. 1, as such, the appeal
deserves to be admitted by formulating substantial
question of law in this regard.

¶19

4.Plaintiff executed sale deed dated 19/06/1992 (Ex.
D/1) in favour of defendant No. 1 for cash
consideration of Rs. 5,600/- and thereby, delivered
the peaceful possession of the suit property
thereof. Thereafter, on 02/08/2005, plaintiff filed
the suit for declaration of title and permanent
injunction stating inter alia that the said sale
deed (Ex. D/1) executed by him in favour of
defendant No. 1 was not a real and outright sale,
but was a nominal sale deed executed for security
of loan, but since in the year 1997, defendant No.

¶20

1 got his name mutated in the revenue records, it

¶21

¶22

compelled him to file the suit for declaration of
title and permanent injunction.

¶23

5. Defendant No. 1 set up a plea that Ex. D/1 was a real sale deed which was executed in the presence of the witnesses and thereafter, he has in the presence of the plaintiff got mutated his name in the revenue records, as such, plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

6. Learned trial Court, upon evaluation of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff which was then upheld by the first appellate Court in the appeal preferred by the plaintiff.

¶25

7. The two Courts below have clearly recorded a finding that the sale deed (Ex. D/1) was a real and outright sale executed by the plaintiff for a valid consideration in favour of defendant No. 1 and particularly, the fact of mortgage has not been incorporated in the sale deed as is required under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, therefore, the sale deed dated 19/06/1992 (Ex. D/1) executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 is a real sale deed and not a nominal sale deed.

¶26

8. In view of the provisions contained under section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and in

¶27

¶28

absence of such a provision being made in the sale
deed dated 19/06/1992 that it was a mortgage
transaction, both the Courts below have rightly
held that the sale deed (Ex. D/1) executed by the
plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 is a real
and outright sale deed and not a nominal sale deed
executed for security of loan. Thus, the said
finding recorded by both the Courts below in this
regard is a finding of fact based on evidence
available on record which is neither perverse nor
contrary to the record.

¶29

9.The second appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves
to be and is accordingly dismissed in limine
without notice to the other side. No cost(s).

¶30

Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶31

Harneet

Purshottam Singh Thakur v. Chandra Shekhar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purshottam Singh Thakur v. Chandra Shekhar 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

Alok Shrivastava Vs Aditiyanarayan and Another

Kanhaiya Lal Sahu Vs Lakhan Lal

Nohri Bai Vs Lavkush Mishra and Another