The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the second appeal in limine without forming the substantial question of law, holding that the impugned findings were based on evidence and not perverse, refusing to interfere with the dismissal of the suit regarding land titles.
Second appeal dismissed in limine without notice to the other side.
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 AT BILASPUR
Second Appeal No. 310 of 2009
1. Deep Singh S/o Kapil Singh, Aged about 30 years, R/o Village Bemetara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
2. Lokram S/o Kapil Singh, Aged about 53 years, R/o Village Bemetara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
3. Chandra Shekhar S/o Kapil Singh (died) through LRs. :-
a. Smt. Chandani W/o Late Chandra Shekhar, Aged
about 55 years.
b. Nitin S/o Late Chandra Shekhar, Aged about 40
years.
c. Vipin S/o Late Chandra Shekhar, Aged about 30
years.
d. Nihit S/o Late Chandra Shekhar, Aged about 30
years.
No. a to d R/o Ward No. 20, in front of house of
Mr. M.R. Verma Advocate at Village Bemetara,
District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
4. Suniti Bai D/o Kapil Singh, Aged about 50 years, R/o Village Bemetara, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
---Appellants/Plaintiffs
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Durg, Chhattisgarh.
2. The Collector, Durg, Chhattisgarh.
2
3. Competent Authority, Sub-Divisional Officer, Bemetara, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents/Defendants
For Appellants :- Mr. R.K. Pali, Advocate
For State :- Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Dy. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board
05/08/2020
1. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs under Section 100 of CPC. By the impugned judgment and decree, learned first appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
2.Mr. R.K. Pali, learned counsel for the
appellants/plaintiffs, would submit that both the
Courts below are absolutely unjustified in
dismissing their suit by recording the findings
which are perverse and contrary to the oral and
documentary evidence on record, as such, the appeal
deserves to be admitted by formulating substantial
question of law for hearing.
3. In the regular ceiling proceeding drawn by the
competent authority under the provisions of M.P.
3
Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 against
the deceased plaintiffs Kapil Singh and Gayabai,
they were held jointly entitled for 195 acres of
land, which was affirmed by the appellate authority
and the surplus land was directed to be vested with
the State. Plaintiff No. 1 Deep Singh and plaintiff
No. 4 Sunitibai were not found entitled, however,
plaintiff No. 3 Chandra Shekhar was found to be
major unmarried son held entitled for 30 acres of
land.
4. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that plaintiff No. 1 is eligible to hold 30 acres of land, plaintiff No. 3 is entitled to hold 54 acres of land and plaintiff No. 4 is entitled for 30 acres of land and accordingly, decree be granted in their favour.
5. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit as barred by Section 46 of the Act as well as on merits. Learned first appellate Court held the suit maintainable and not barred by Section 46 of the Act, but dismissed the appeal on merits.
6.After appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence on record, learned trial Court has clearly
held that plaintiffs are not entitled to hold the
4
further land and dismissed the suit, which was
affirmed by the first appellate Court. The findings
recorded by both the Courts below are findings of
fact based on evidence available on record. It is
neither perverse nor contrary to record.
7. This second appeal is devoid of merits as no substantial question of law is involved. It deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed in
limine without notice to the other side. No cost(s).
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Harneet
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal is devoid of merits as no substantial question of law is involved.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Deep Singh S/o Kapil Singh
Lokram S/o Kapil Singh
Suniti Bai D/o Kapil Singh
State of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court