a second appeal in a suit for declaration of title and possession based on alleged Uraon caste custom. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding the lower courts' findings on fact were not perverse and did not involve a substantial question of law.
Second appeal dismissed in limine without notice to the other side; no costs awarded.
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.408 of 2009
---- Appellant/Plaintiff
Versus
---Respondents
For Appellant :Shri AK Prasad, Advocate For Respondent No.4 :Ku. Veena Nair, Dy. Advocate General
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order on Board
02.7.2020.
law in this second appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellant Court
2
affirming the the judgment and decree by which the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
5 . The plaintiff has filed suit for declaration of title and possession in respect of suit land situated at village Tangardih, Tahsil Bagicha, Distt. Jashpur. The respondents 1& 2 /defendants 1 & 2 are the daughters and respondent No.3/defendant No.3 is the widow of one Joseph. After the death of Joseph, the plaintiff being his son brought the suit for declaration of title and possession in respect of suit land on the ground that they belong to Uraon caste and are members of Scheduled Tribe and their caste daughters do not get any share in the property of their father and widow is entitled only for maintenance. The trial Court after framing the issues and recording the evidence, dismissed the suit of the
3
plaintiff holding that the plaintiff could not prove that being a son he is only having right over the properties of his father, the daughters and the wife are not having any right. Against this, the plaintiff filed appeal before the first appellate Court. Both the Courts below have concurrently and categorically appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and recorded that the plaintiff has failed to prove the valid custom of the Uraon caste by which they belong, that daughters do not get any share in the property of their father and the widow is entitled for only maintenance by leading evidence.
not involve any substantial question of law in this regard.
in limine without notice to the other side. No cost(s).
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE
Bini
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the concurrent finding of fact by two courts dismissing the suit due to failure to prove a custom excluding daughters and widow from inheritance discloses a substantial question of law requiri
Thomas
Smt. Kolestica W/o. Ishwar Kerketta
Ku. Rajkishori
Mst. Sabina @ Sukhni W/o. Joseph
The State of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
