Allowed

Puranik Chandrakar v. Jivrakhan Chandrakar (Dead) Through Lrs.

Chhattisgarh HC14 Sept 2020SA/376/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the second appeal against the suit for partition of a house. The Court held that since a partition of joint family property in 1967 and other lands in 2001-02 had occurred, the presumption of jointness applied. Without evidence that the suit house specifically was excluded from the 1967 partition or reserved for the father's maintenance, it was deemed partitioned, and the su

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree of Courts below set aside; the suit dismissed in favour of defendants No.11 to 21.

Puranik Chandrakar Vs Jivrakhan Chandrakar (Dead) Through Lrs. — Partition | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

AFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Second Appeal No.376 of 2009

¶5

1. Puranik Chandrakar S/o Late Jailal Chandrakar, aged about 67 years;

¶6

2. Puranlal S/o Late Jailal Chandrakar, aged about 64 years,

¶7

3. Ganeshyam Chandrakar S/o Late Jailal Chandrakar, aged about 60 years,

¶8

4. Chhotan Chandrakar S/o Late Jailal Chandrakar, aged about 57 years,

¶9

5. Nandkumar S/o Late Jailal Chandrakar, aged about 54 years,

¶10

6. Pawan Kumar Chandrakar S/o Late Jailal Chandrakar, aged about 48 years,

¶11

7. Anup Kumar S/o Late Jailal Chandrakar, aged about 45 years,

¶12

8. Smt.Rajkunwar (died and deleted) All R/o Village Sumhera, Tahsil Chhura, District Raipur (CG)

¶13

9. Kheduram Chandrakar (died) through his LR's 9.A Khubchand S/o Late Kheduram Chandrakar, aged about 30 years

¶14

9.B Roshan S/o Late Kheduram, aged about 26 years, 9.C Laxmi wd/o Late Kheduram, aged about 58 years, All R/o Village – Chhura, Tahsil – Chhura, District – Gariyaband (CG)

¶15

10. Smt.Munnibai W/o Rikhiram Chandrakar, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Bodridadar, Tahsil & District Mahasamund (CG)

¶16

11. Smt. Sevtibai W/o Somnath Chandrakar, aged about 35 years, R/o Purana Kurmipara, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG)

¶17

---- Appellants/Defendants

¶18

Versus

¶19

1. Jivrakhan Chandrakar (died) through LR's

¶20

1.A Ambalal S/o Late Jivrakhan, aged about 55 years, R/o Village – Dulla, Tahsil – Gariyaband, District – Gariyaband (CG)

¶21

1.B Hulsiya Bai Wd/o late Ramanand, D/o Late
Jivrakhan, aged about 57 years, R/o Village –
Kharora, District – Mahasamund (CG)

¶22

¶23

1.C Pannalal S/o Late Jivrakhan, aged about 52 years,
R/o Village – Kosmi, Block – Chhura, District –
Gariyaband (CG)

¶24

1.D Thakur Ram S/o Late Jivrakhan, aged about 50
years, R/o Village – Semra, Block – Chhura, District
– Gariyaband (CG)

¶25

1.E Hemchand S/o Late Jivrakhan, aged about 49 years,
R/o Village – Tonhidabri, District – Gariyaband (CG)

¶26

1.F Rukmani D/o Late Jivrakhan, aged about 50 years,
R/o Village – Palod, Near International Cricket
Stadium, Raipur, District-Raipur (CG)

¶27

1.G Mohit S/o Late Jivrakhan, aged about 51 years,
R/o Village – Dulla, Tahsil – Gariyaband, District –
Gariyaband (CG)

¶28

2. Bhuwanlal Chandrakar (died) through LR's

¶29

2.A Mitlesh S/o Late Pitambar Grand Son of Late
Bhuwanlal, R/o Village – Semra, Block – Chhura, Tah-
sil – Gariyaband, District – Gariyaband (CG)

¶30

2.B Laxmi Narayan S/o late Bhuwanlal, aged about 40
years, R/o Village – Tonhidabri, District – Gariya-
band (CG)

¶31

2.C Nirmala D/o Late Bhuwanlal, W/o Amrit Chandrakar,
aged about 42 years, R/o Khurud, Tahsil – Khurud,
District – Dhamtari (CG)

¶32

2.D Kunti D/o Late Bhuwanlal, Wd/o Sudama, aged about
45 years, R/o Bhagbahara, District – Mahasamund (CG)

¶33

2.E Janak S/o Late Bhuwanlal, aged about 46 years, R/o
Village – Dulla, District – Gariyaband (CG)

¶34

2.F Lata W/o Nand Chandrakar, D/o Late Bhuwanlal, aged
about 45 years, R/o Village – Kauwadhih, Sildevri,
District – Balodabazar (CG)

¶35

2.G Munna S/o Late Bhuwanlal Chandrakar, aged about 45
years, R/o Village – Dulla, District – Gariyaband (CG)

¶36

3. Smt.Rukmani Bai Widow of Late Bhuwan Chandrakar, aged about 70 years,

¶37

4. Chhannu Lal Chandrakar S/o Late Bhukhan Chandrakar, aged about 54 years,

¶38

5. Keshav Chandrakar S/o Late Bhukhan Chandrakar, aged about 51 years,

¶39

6. Dilip Chandrakar S/o Late Bhukhan Chandrakar, aged about 45 years,

¶40

7. Kamdev Chandrakar (died) through LR's

¶41

¶42

7.A Smt. Sheema Wd/o Late Kamdev Chandrakar, aged
about 45 years, R/o Village – Semra, District –
Gariyaband (CG)

¶43

7.B Sumit S/o Late Kamdev Chandrakar, aged about 22
years, R/o Village – Semra, District – Gariyaband
(CG)

¶44

7.C Priyanka D/o Late Kamdev, R/o Village – Semra,
District – Gariyaband (CG)

¶45

8. Tikam Chandrakar S/o Late Bhukhan Chandrakar, aged about 40 years,

¶46

9. Paragbai D/o Late Bhukhan Chandrakar, aged about 35 years,

¶47

Respondents No.3 to 6, 8 and 9 are R/o Village Semra,
Tahsil Gariyaband, District Raipur (CG)

¶48

---- Respondents/Defendants

¶49

For Appellants/Defendants No.11 to 21:-

¶50

Mr.Rishi Mahobia, Advocate
For LR's of respondent No.1/plaintiff:-

¶51

None present

¶52

For respondents No.3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9:-

¶53

Mr.Akash Pandey, Advocate

¶54

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

¶55

14.09.2020

¶56

1. The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this second appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants No.11 to 21 is as under:-

¶57

“Whether the both the Courts below were
justified in holding that the suit property
was not available for earlier partition and
decreed the suit rightly by recording a
finding which is perverse and contrary to the
record ?”

¶58

[For the sake of convenience, parties would be
referred hereinafter as per their status shown and
ranking given in the suit before the trial Court].

¶59

¶60

2. The dispute is with regard to the suit house situated at village Chhura, Tahsil Brindranavagarh, District Raipur area 1974.25 sq.ft. out of which in 1000 sq.ft. kachha house has been constructed. Admittedly, the suit house was joint family property headed by Brijlal Chandrakar. He had four sons namely, Jivrakhan, who is plaintiff herein, Bhuwanlal Chandrakar (defendant No.1), Jailal (defendants No.11 to 21 were successorin-interest of Jailal) and Bhukhanlal. It is admitted position on record that the suit house was joint family property and apart from this property, the joint family had several other properties, which were partitioned by Brijlal Chandarkar in the year 1967 during his lifetime and thereafter Brijlal died in the year 1995. It is also admitted position on record that Brijlal Chandrakar had kept 6 acres of land at village Semhra, which was partitioned by the parties after his death in the year 2001-02. The plaintiff filed a suit as back as on 1.9.2007 stating inter-alia that the suit house was held by all four brothers, Jivrakhan (plaintiff herein), Lakhanlal, Jailal and Bhukhanlal and it has not been partitioned, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4^th share in the suit house.

¶61

3. Defendants No.11 to 21 not only opposed the plaint

¶62

¶63

allegations setting up a plea of earlier petition in
the year 1967, but also laid counter-claim stating
inter-alia that the suit property fell in their share
on the partition held in the year 1967 during the life
time of Brijlal Chandrakar and it be declared that
partition has already been taken place between the
parties in the year 1967 and the suit house has
already been partitioned and fell in share of Jailal,
predecessor-in-title of defendants No.11 to 21.

¶64

4. Resisting the counter-claim, the plaintiff filed the
written statement and taken U-turn by pleading that in
partition held in the year 1967 the suit house was
kept by Brijlal Chandrkar for his own use and also
kept 6 acres of land at village Semhra. So far as the
land situated at village Semhra is concerned, it was
partitioned after death of his father Brijlal
Chandrakar, but the suit house was never partitioned,
therefore, counter-claim is liable to be dismissed.

¶65

5. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by it judgment and decree dated 5.11.2008, decreed the suit holding that the suit house was kept by Brijlal Chanadrkar for his own use in partition held in the year 1967 and it has not been partitioned, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4^th share, which has

¶66

¶67

further been affirmed by the first appellate Court in
appeal preferred by defendants No.11 to 21, against
which, the said defendants again preferred this second
appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, in which
substantial question of law has been formulated, which
has been set-out in the opening paragraph of this
judgment.

¶68

6. Mr.Rishi Mahobia, learned counsel for the

¶69

appellants/defendants No.11 to 21, would submit that
both the Courts below have erred in holding that the
suit house was reserved for Brijlal Chandrakar for his
own use and it was not partitioned. He would further
submit that such a finding is perverse finding and
there cannot be successive partition one after other
and further there is no evidence on record to hold the
the suit house was kept by Brijlal Chandrakar for his
own use, rather in the year 1967 partition allotted to
their predecessor in title Jaiyal and after his death
they have succeeded the suit property. Both the Courts
below have granted the decree on the basis of no
evidence, which is liable to be set aside.
7. Mr.Akash Pandey, learned counsel for respondents No.3,
4, 5, 6 and 8 and 9 would submit that both the Courts
below are absolutely justified in decreeing the suit
in favour of the plaintiff as it is evident from the

¶70

¶71

record that the suit house was reserved by Brijlal
Chandrakar for his own use for his lifetime and also
kept 5 acres of land at village Semhra which has been
partitioned admittedly in the year 2001-02, but suit
house has not been partitioned, therefore, both the
Courts below are justified in directing partition,
which is neither perverse nor contrary to record, as
such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶72

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
considered their rival submissions made hereinabove
and also went through the records with utmost
circumspection.

¶73

9. It is not in dispute that Brijlal Chandrakar had four sons namely, plainitff-Jivrakhan, Bhuwanlal, Jailal and Bhukhanlal. The defendants are successor-ininterest of Bhuwanlal, Jaylal and Bhukhanlal. It is admitted position on record that the suit property was joint family property of the parties and Karta of the family was Brijlal Chandrakar. He partitioned all his property between his four sons during his lifetime. It is also admitted position on record that he kept 5 acres of land at village Semhra and he died in the year 1995 and thereafter the successor-in-interest of all the four brothers herein have partitioned their agricultural lands received by them in the year 2001-

¶74

¶75

02. The only dispute is with regard to the suit house
situated at village Chhura, Tahsil Brindranawagarh.

¶76

10.It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit

¶77

house was not partitioned. In a suit filed by the
plaintiff on 1.9.2007 he has simply made averment that
the suit property is joint family property purchased
by all four brothers from Prithvi Singh and it has not

¶78

been partitioned, therefore, he is entitled for
partition. In reply to the counter-claim filed by
defendants No.11 to 21 the plaintiff has taken U-turn
and taken a stand that the suit property was reserved
by Brijlal Chandrakar for his own use and maintenance.
Thus, for the first time, written statement filed to
the counter-claim, the plaintiff took a stand that the
suit house was reserved by Brijlal Chandrakar for his
own use and maintenance. No documentary evidence has
been brought on record to prove that the suit house
was reserved by Brijlal Chandrakar for his own use.

¶79

11. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kesharbai alias Pushpabai Eknathrao Nalawade (Dead) by LR's and another v. Tarabai Prabhakarrao Nalawade and

¶80

others1 in which the Supreme Court has held that the
joint and undivided family being the normal condition

¶81

1 (2014) 4 SCC 707

¶82

¶83

of a Hindu family, it is usually presumed, until the
contrary is proved, that every Hindu family is joint
and undivided and all its property is joint. This
presumption, however, cannot be made once a partition
(of status or property), whether general or partial,
is shown to have taken place in a family. It was
observed as under:-

¶84

“21.In our opinion, the aforesaid presumption
is wrong in law in view of the fact that the
High Court has affirmed the findings of the
trial court that in 1985, there was a
complete partition and the parties had acted
on the same. It is a settled principle of law
that once a partition in the sense of
division of right, title or status is proved
or admitted, the presumption is that all
joint property was partitioned or divided.
Undoubtedly the joint and undivided family
being the normal condition of a Hindu family,
it is usually presumed, until the contrary is
proved, that every Hindu family is joint and
undivided and all its property is joint. This
presumption, however, cannot be made once a
partition (of status or property), whether
general or partial, is shown to have taken
place in a family. This proposition of law
has been applied by this court in a number of
cases. We may notice here the judgment of
this Court in Bhagwati Prasad Sah v.
Rameshwari Kuer2, wherein it was inter alia
observed as under:

¶85

“8. Before we discuss the evidence on the
record, we desire to point out that on
the admitted facts of this case neither
party has any presumption on his side
either as regards jointness or separation
of the family. The general principle
undoubtedly is that a Hindu family is
presumed to be joint unless the contrary
is proved, but where it is admitted that
one of the coparceners did separate

¶86

2 AIR 1952 SC 72

¶87

¶88

himself from the other members of the
joint family and had his share in the
joint property partitioned off for him,
there is no presumption that the rest of
the coparceners continued to be joint.
There is no presumption on the other side
too that because one member of the family
separated himself, there has been
separation with regard to all. It would
be a question of fact to be determined in
each case upon the evidence relating to
the intention of the parties whether
there was a separation amongst the other
coparceners or that they remained united.
The burden would undoubtedly lie on the
party who asserts the existence of a
particular state of things on the basis
of which he claims relief.”

¶89

12. Similarly, the Patna High Court in the matter of

¶90

Ramnagina Sah and Ors. v. Harihar Sah and Ors.3 has
held that when a partition is admitted or proved, the
presumption is that all the properties were divided
and a person alleging that family property in the
exclusive possession of one of the members after the
partition, is joint and is liable to be partitioned,
has to prove his case. Therefore, it was further held
that in a suit for partition the plaintiffs had to
prove that in spite of the first partition or the
second partition alleged by them the property in suit
continued to be joint.

¶91

13. In the matter of Marjadi Devi and Ors. v. Jagarnath Singh and Ors. 4 the Patna High Court has

3 AIR 1966 Pat 179

4 AIR 1983 Pat 129

held as under:-

¶96

“16. We approve of the finding of the trial
court and the plaintiffs are not at all
entitled to a partition as there was a
partition by metes and bounds and the
appellants could not displace the findings on
the basis of the materials on record.”

¶97

14. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the

¶98

light of principle of law laid down in the above-
stated judgments (supra), it is quite vivid that
partition has already taken place in the year 1967 in
presence of Brijlal Chandrakar, karta of the family
and since then they have divided their landed property
and are residing separately except 5 acres of land at
village Semhra, which has also been partitioned in the
year 2001-02 after death of their father Brijlal
Chandrakar. The plaintiff has pleaded that the suit
house has not been partitioned in written statement to
counter-claim, but except self-serving statement, no
evidence has been brought on record by the plaintiff
that the suit house was kept by Brijlal Chandrakar for
his own use and maintenance. Both the Courts have
heavily relied upon admission of defendant No.12-

¶99

Puranik. Puranik (DW-1) has simply stated in his
statement that Brijlal has kept the house and land for
his own use, but in para-10 he has refuted the
suggestion that it was kept by Brijlal for his own

¶100

¶101

maintenance in partition. Thus, in the instant case,
partition has already been taken place firstly in the
year 1967 and thereafter in the year 2001-02.
Agricultural land reserved by Brijlal Chandrakar has
also been partitioned. Burden of proof was on the
plaintiff to adduce evidence and to prove that the
suit house was joint and it was not partitioned, to
which he has failed to lead evidence and could not
prove that the suit property was not partitioned in
the year 1967 and 2001-02, as such, the plaintiff has
failed to plead and prove that in earlier partition
the suit property was not subjected to partition and
remained undivided and available for further
partition.

¶102

15. Concludingly, both the Courts below were unjustified in holding that the suit property was not subjected to partition by recording a finding which is perverse and the plaintiff is not entitled for decree of partition of the suit property.

¶103

16. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of both the Courts below are hereby set aside and the suit would stand dismissed by answering the substantial question of law in favour of defendants No.11 to 21 and against the plaintiff.

¶104

17. The second appeal is allowed to the extent

¶105

¶106

indicated hereinabove.

¶107

18. A appellate decree be drawn-up accordingly.

¶108

Sd/- (Sanjay K.Agrawal) Judge

¶109