The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the second appeal without notice. The bench held that the concurrent findings of fact by lower courts, which denied the appellants exclusive title in favor of a widow claimant, were based on record material and not perverse, rendering the appeal devoid of merit.
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. 364 of 2007
Umrao Singh, son of Malkha Caste Gond, aged about 57
years, Occupation Cultivation R/o village Kumhari Tahsil
and Police Station Mohla, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
----Appellant/Plaintiff
Versus
1.Baratnin Bai, W/o unknown, aged about 52 years,
occupation Cultivation, R/o village Behari-tola, Post
Gotatola, Tahsil and Police Station Mohla, District
Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
2.State of Chhattisgarh through Collector District
Office Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
----Respondents/Defendants
For Appellant : Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
02/01/2020
(1)Heard on the question of admission and formulation of
substantial question of law of this second appeal preferred
by plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 questioning the impugned judgment & decree
dated 14th February, 2007 passed by First Additional District
Judge,Rajnandgaon inCivilAppealNo.23-A/2004
affirming the judgment and decree dated 22nd July, 2004
passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Ambagarh Chowki, in Civil
Suit No. 4-A/1994, dismissing the suit.
2
(2)Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff
would submit that both the courts below are absolutely
unjustified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs holding
that suit property is not exclusively held by two plaintiffs
namely Umrao Singh & Aasmoutin; and defendant No. 1 -Bartanin
Bai Godin has also right & title over the suit property, by
recording a finding, which is perverse and contrary to the
record, therefore, appeal deserves to be admitted for hearing
by formulating substantial question of law for determination.
(3)Civil Suit was filed by the two plaintiffs stating inter
alia that they are exclusive title and possession holder of
the suit land and, therefore, decree for declaration of title
and permanent injunction be passed in their favour, in which,
the trial Court has recorded a finding that plaintiffs have
failed to prove exclusive title and possession over the suit
land and dismissed the suit, which has been affirmed by the
first appellate Court, in an appeal preferred by the
plaintiff, against which, second appeal has been preferred.
(4) Suit property was originally held by Kadhe. He had three sons namely Malkha Gond, Amar Singh and Amru. Plaintiff No. 1 is son of Malkha Gond whereas plaintiff No. 2 is widow of Malkha Gond. Amar Singh and his wife died issuless and defendant No. 1 – Bartnin Bai claimed to be the wife of Amru. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction stating that the suit property is their
3
exclusive property, in which, defendant No. 1- Bartanin Bai
had no right or title as she is not the legally wedded wife
of Amru, which the trial court negatived holding that though
the fact of partition is proved but plaintiffs have failed to
prove their exclusive title over the suit land; and that
finding has been affirmed by the first appellate Court, in an
appeal preferred by both the plaintiffs, against which
instant second appeal has been preferred. Thus, the
concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below that
plaintiffs are not the exclusive title holder of the suit
land as the Amru's wife Baratnin Bai (defendant No. 1) has
also the title holder and possession holder of the suit land,
is a finding of fact based on material available on record
and I do not find it either perverse or contrary to record
and no question of law much less substantial question of law
is involved in this appeal.
(8)Accordingly, the second appeal, being devoid of merit,
is liable to be and is hereby dismissed without notice to the
other side.
Sd/-
Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
D/-
4
(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 ?
(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,
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal is maintainable given the lack of substantial question of law.
Whether the lower courts' findings regarding exclusive title and possession are perverse or contrary to the record.
Umrao Singh
Baratin Bai
State of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court