In this second appeal by the plaintiff/appellant regarding ancestral and self-acquired property division, the High Court of Chhattisgarh held that the first appellate court correctly found that a partition had occurred, thereby limiting the appellant's share to half of the suit property.
Appeal dismissed; parties to bear their own costs.
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.414 of 2006
Heera Lal, S/o Butan @ Butu, by Caste Ahir, aged about 40 years (at present aged about 55 years), Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Dhondha, Tah. Pratappur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.)
(Plaintiff) ---- Appellant
Versus
(Defendants) ---- Respondents
For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent No.2: None present, though served. For Respondent No.3 / State: -
Mr. Aakash Pandey, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Judgment On Board
09/01/2020
“Whether the first appellate Court, after having held that the suit property mentioned in 'Schedule A' of the plaint admeasuring 4.038 hectares was the self-acquired property of Late Butan, father of plaintiff and original defendant No.1 and he has sold the said suit property to the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 18/02/1972 (Ex. P/7), was justified in holding that Late Butan has already partitioned the suit property during his lifetime giving ½ of the share to his other son i.e. original defendant No.1, therefore, plaintiff will only be entitled for 1.845 hectares of land which is perverse and contrary to record?”
2
(For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred as per their status shown and ranking given in the plaint before the trial Court.)
3
disputed property in the year 1952 and total 1.846 hectares land was given to defendant Jagdev by Butan in the partition took place in the year 1952 and the property shown in para 2(c) of the written statement was given to the plaintiff by Butan. Finally, the trial Court dismissed the suit against which the plaintiff preferred first appeal before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court by its impugned judgment & decree held that the property shown in Schedule 'Ka' of the plaint is self-acquired property of Butan and sale deed was executed on 18-2-1972 in favour of the plaintiff by Butan, but further held that area 1.846 hectares of land as mentioned in para 2(b) of the written statement was settled in favour of defendant Jagdev by way of partition, therefore, the plaintiff is only entitled for half share in the property shown in Schedule 'Ka' of the plaint and accordingly decreed the suit partly, whereas dismissed the suit with regard to Schedule 'Kha' of the plaint holding it to be the self-acquired property of defendant Jagdev against which this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff under Section 100 of the CPC in which substantial question of law has been framed which has been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.
4
took place during the lifetime of Butan, he has given half of the scheduled property to original defendant No.1 Jagdev and therefore the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the property shown in Schedule 'Ka' of the plaint by recording a finding which is perverse, as the sale deed was never questioned by defendant No.1 by filing counter-claim and that finding has attained finality and even that has not been challenged in the cross-objection to be preferred.
5
is admitted by the plaintiff and his witnesses with reference to the property shown in Schedule 'Ka' of the plaint, the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration of the entire land shown in Schedule 'Ka' and accordingly, granted half share in the said property. The suit property area 4.038 hectares after having been partitioned, could not have been alienated by Butan in favour of the plaintiff that too for a consideration of ₹ 2,000/- and more than 10 acres of land has been said to be alienated which the first appellate Court has noticed. Keeping in view that after giving share of 1.846 hectares of land to defendant Jagdev, the entire suit land shown in Schedule 'Ka' of the plaint has been sold by Butan to the plaintiff, only decree to the extent of half share in 1.846 hectares has been granted in favour of the plaintiff in which I do not find any perversity or illegality. The finding arrived by the first appellate Court is a finding of fact based on the evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly and the appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).
Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge
Soma
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the first appellate Court erred in holding that the appellant is entitled only to a half share in the suit property after finding that a partition had taken place during the lifetime of the fa
Whether the finding of the first appellate Court regarding the plaintiff's entitlement to only half share despite the execution of a sale deed is perverse or contrary to the record.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Heera Lal
Mus. Dashmatiya
The State of Chhattisgarh
Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
