In a second appeal regarding a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appeal. The court held that findings of fact regarding possession were not perverse and no substantial question of law arose, dismissing the appeal in limine without notice.
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.377 of 2009
Rukmani Bai D/o late Chhabilal, aged about 70
years, R/o vill. Dhanora, Tah. Gurur, Distt. Durg
(CG)
---- Appellant/Defendant No.1
Versus
Hari Ram S/o late Latkhor, aged about 59 years, R/o Vill. Dhanora, Tah.Gurur, Distt. Durg (CG)---- PlaintiffState of C.G. Through Collector, Durg, Distt. Durg (CG)---- Respondents
For Appellant/Defendant No.1:-
Mr.B.P.Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent No.2 / State: -
Ms Veena Nair, Dy.A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
02/07/2020
Proceedings of this matter have been taken up through video conferencing.Heard this second appeal on the question of admission and formulation of substantial question of law preferred by the appellant/defendant No.1.By the impugned judgment and decree, the first appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by defendant No.1 affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.Mr.B.P.Gupta, learned counsel for the2
appellant/defendant No.1, would submit that both
the Courts below have concurrently erred in holding
that the plaintiff is cultivating possession of the
suit land and therefore, he is entitled for decree
for declaration of title and permanent injunction,
by recording a finding, which is perverse and
contrary to record as there is no evidence on
record to hold that the plaintiff is in possession
of the suit land and as such, the appeal involves
substantial question of law for determination.
Jairam had three sons namely Latkhor, Chhabilal and Tanguram. The plaintiff is son of Latkhor, whereas defendant No.1 is daughter of Chhabilal. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was partitioned during lifetime of Jairam and it fell in share of his father Latkhor and after his death the plaintiff has inherited the suit property. Cause of action arose when defendant No.1 harvested the crop sown by the plaintiff. The trial Court has framed as many as 7 issues including the issue withregard to limitation and clearly came to the
conclusion that the suit property fell in share of
the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff is in
possession of the suit land after death of his
father and the suit filed by the plaintiff is
within limitation, which has been affirmed by the
first appellate Court.
3
Concurrent finding recorded by two Courts below holding that the suit property fell in share of the plaintiff's father and the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land is finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary 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.Accordingly, the second appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed in limine without notice to other side. Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
B/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding of concurrent courts regarding plaintiff's possession and title is perverse and attracts substantial question of law.
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law requiring determination.
Rukmani Bai D/o late Chhabilal
Hari Ram S/o late Latkhor
State of C.G.
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court