This High Court reviewed a second appeal challenging a declaration of title suit. The court held the appeal devoid of merit, dismissing it on the view that the appellant was not a successor-in-interest and the statute barred the benami plea.
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, BILASPUR
Second Appeal No.380 of 2009
Ram Bai D/o Late Shri Ram Prasad, Aged about 43
years, R/o Village-Bagra, Tehsil-Pendra Road,
District-Bilaspur (CG)
---- Appellant/Plaintiff
Versus
Dhan Singh, S/o Jal Lal Singh Gond, Aged about 51 years, R/o Village-Bagra, Tehsil-Pendra Road, District-Bilaspur (CG)Govind Lal S/o Jai Lal Singh Gond, Aged about 46 years, R/o Village-Bagra, Tehsil-Pendra Road, District-Bilaspur (CG)Jawahar Lal, S/o Jai Lal Singh Gond, Aged about 41 years, R/o Village-Bagra, Tehsil-Pendra Road, District-Bilaspur (CG)Varkarin Bai, D/o Jai Lal Singh Gond, Aged about 56 years, R/o Village-Bagra, Tehsil-Pendra Road, District-Bilaspur (CG)---- DefendantsState of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, DistrictBilaspur (CG)---- Respondents
For Appellant / Plaintiff:-
Mr.Om Kukreja, Advocate
For Respondent No.5 / State: -
Ms Veena Nair, Dy.A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
03/07/2020
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/plaintiff.By the impugned judgment and decree, the first appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred2
by the plaintiff affirming the judgment and decree
of the trial Court dismissing the suit for
declaration of title and permanent injunction.
Mr.Om Kukreja, learned counsel for theappellant/plaintiff, would submit that both the
Courts below are absolutely unjustified in holding
that the plaintiff is not successor-in-interest of
Shivprasad to whom the suit property belonged and
recorded in revenue record of 1927-28, by recording
a finding which is perverse to record.
The suit property was originally held by Shivprasad and duly recorded in revenue records. One Nankuniya Bai was earlier married with Hansaram @ Mansa. After death of Hansaram, said Nankuniya Bai married with Sitaram in chudi form. Ramprasad was son of Sitaram and the plaintiff is daughter of Ramprasad.The plaintiff brought a suit that Sitaram had
purchased the suit property from his own income in
the name of Shivprasad and therefore, she is
successor-in-interest and title-holder of the suit
property. The trial Court dismissed the suit
holding that the plaintiff is not successor-in-
interest of Shivprasad as Nankuniya Bai had two
sons namely Shivprasad and Jankunwar. Shiv Prasad
died issueless and the plaintiff being daughter of
Ramprasad cannot succeed the suit property. The
first appellate Court also affirmed the finding
3
recorded by the trial Court.
Both the Courts below have rightly and concurrently held that the suit property was held by Shivprasad and the plaintiff is daughter of Ramprasad and alleged granddaughter of Sitram, as such, she is not successor-in-interest of Shivprasad and further held that at the time of institution of suit on 26.10.99 the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1988') had already came into force by which the plea of benami is not permissible to be raised and the suit is barred by Section 4 of the Act of 1988. Such a finding recorded by two Courts below is finding of fact based on evidence available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to record. I do not find any illegality or perversity 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 appellant is a successor-in-interest of the holder of the suit property.
Whether the appeal suffers from perversity or reveals a substantial question of law.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Bai D/o Late Shri Ram Prasad
Dhan Singh
Govind Lal
Jawahar Lal
Varkarin Bai
State of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court