Dismissed

Harvansh Singh v. Pratap Singh (Died) through Legal Hrs

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jan 2020SA/436/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal challenging a lower court's dismissal of a partition suit, the High Court found that the plaintiff admitted prior partition of ancestral property including land and accommodation given to his mother. Finding no perverse reasoning in the lower courts, the High Court held no substantial question of law existed and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed at the admission stage without notice to the other side; no order as to costs.

Harvansh Singh Vs Pratap Singh (Died) through Legal Hrs — Partition | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Second Appeal No.436 of 2007

¶5

Order reserved on: 2-1-2020

¶6

Order delivered on: 6-1-2020

¶7

Harvansh Singh, Aged about 58 years, S/o Late Shri Sardar Singh Sikkh, R/o Patharia, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

(Plaintiff)

---- Appellant

Versus

Pratap Singh (Dead) Through Legal Heirs

¶12

1(a) Harjeet Singh, S/o Late Shri Pratap Singh, aged about 55 years, R/o Village and Post Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶13

1(b) Harvinder Kaur, W/o Shri Harjeet Singh Chhabda, D/o Late Shri Pratap Singh, aged about 62 years, R/o Village and Post Ghodadogri, Railway Station (M.P.)

¶14

1(c) Preetam Kaur, W/o Shri Joginder Singh Chhabda, D/o Late Shri Pratap Singh, aged about 54 years, R/o Village and Post Sangvadevri, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶15

1(d) Dhanwant Kaur, W/o Shri Dilbag Singh Khurana, D/o Late Shri Pratap Singh, aged about 52 years, R/o Village and Post Navagarh, Near Gurudwara, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶16

1(e) Gurmeet Kaur, W/o Late Shri Jashpal Singh Pahua, D/o late Shri Pratap Singh, aged about 50 years, R/o Kawardha, Sadar Road, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶17

1(f) Surjeet Kaur, W/o Shri Raghuveer Singh Chhabda, D/o late Shri Pratap Singh, aged about 45 years, R/o Village and Post Pathariya, Near Pani Tanki, Chor Bhatti, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶18

Jogandar Singh (Dead) Through Legal Heirs

¶19

2(a) Rajendra Singh Chhabda, S/o Late Shri Jogandar Singh Chhabda, aged about 58 years, R/o Village and Post Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶20

2(b) Jaspal Singh Chhabda, S/o Late Shri Jogandar Singh Chhabda, aged about 55 years, R/o Village and Post Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶21

2(c) Jasbir Singh Chhabda, S/o late Shri Jogandar Singh Chhabda, aged about 54 years, R/o Village and Post Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶22

2(d) Jagjeet Kaur, W/o Shri Dilip Singh Gandhi, D/o late Shri Jogandar

¶23

¶24

Singh Chhabda, aged about 55 years, R/o Khariyar Road, District Kalahadi, Orissa.

¶25

2(e) Harbhajan Kaur, W/o Shri Dilip Singh Chhabda, D/o late Shri Jogandar Singh Chhabda, aged about 50 years, R/o Sadar Bazar, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶26

2(f) Surendra Kaur, W/o Shri Gurmeet Singh Makhija, D/o Late Shri Jogandar Singh Chhabda, aged about 55 years, R/o Village and Post Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶27

2(g) Shanti Rani, W/o Surendra Singh Gandhi @ Pappu, D/o Late Shri Jogandar Singh Chhabda, aged about 55 years, R/o Village and Post Navagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.)

¶28

Guruvachan Singh (Dead) Through Legal Heirs

¶29

3(i) Smt. Seeta Rani Singh, Wd/o Late Ravipal Singh, aged about 50 years,

¶30

3(ii) Mr. Sinku Singh, S/o Late Ravipal Singh, aged about 30 years,

¶31

3(iii) Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh, S/o Late Guruvachan Singh, aged about 55 years,

¶32

All R/o Ward No.7, Post Pathariya, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶33

3(iv) Smt. Surjeet Kaur, W/o Late Teja Singh, aged about 60 years, R/o Punjabi Colony, Dayalband, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶34

3(v) Smt. Jashvant Kaur, W/o Late Ajeet Singh, aged about 57 years, R/o Near Ram Mandir, Takhatpur, District Mungeli (C.G.)

¶35

3(vi) Smt. Preetam Kaur, W/o Gurdayal Singh, aged about 58 years, R/o Near Kali Mandir, Pali, District Korba (C.G.)

¶36

3(vii) Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, W/o Balbeer Singh Khurana, aged about 59 years, R/o Punjabi Colony, Ashok Nagar, District Ashok Nagar (M.P.)

¶37

3(viii) Surjeet Singh, S/o not known to the appellant, aged about 57 years, R/o Near Chhabra Hotel, Gurudwara, Sardar Mohalla, Kavardha (C.G.)

¶38

3(ix) Smt. Charanjeet Kaur, W/o Charanjeet Singh, aged about 40 years, R/o Near Kali Mandir, Pali, District Korba (C.G.)

¶39

Smt. Harvansh Kour, Aged about 63 years, D/o Amar Singh, W/o Premsingh Sikkh, R/o Navagarh, Tahsil Navagarh, District Durg (C.G.)

¶40

Haricharan Singh, Aged about 51 years, S/o Sardarsingh Sikkh, R/o Village Patharia, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶41

Nirmal Singh (Died and deleted)

¶42

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Bilaspur.

¶43

(Respondent No.7 – formal) (Defendants)

¶44

¶45

---- Respondents

¶46

For Appellant: Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate. For Respondent No.7 / State: -

¶47

Miss Anjali Singh Chouhan, Panel Lawyer.

¶48

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶49

C.A.V. Order

¶50

Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in the second appeal preferred by the plaintiff questioning the impugned judgment & decree by which the first appeal has been dismissed affirming the judgment & decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit.

¶51

Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein / plaintiff, would submit that both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff by recording a finding which is perverse to the record. The suit property being held by Amar Singh and the plaintiff being the grand-son of Amar Singh (being one of the daughter's son) is entitled for 1/12^th share in the suit property. The suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below on the finding which is perverse to the record and which involves substantial question of law for determination. Mr. Bajaj relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court to buttress his submission: -

¶52

Man Singh (D) by L.Rs. v. Ram Kala (D) by L.Rs. and others 1.

¶53

Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi 2.

¶54

Gannu alias Gaanu Ram and another v. Dhanmat Bai and others 3.

¶55

Akil Ram v. Sukhmen 4.

¶56

1 AIR 2011 SC 1542

¶57

2 AIR 2011 SC 1127

¶58

3 AIR 2019 Chhattisgarh 148

¶59

4 AIRONLINE 2019 Chh 119

¶60

¶61

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶62

The suit property was originally held by Amar Singh who died in the year 1977 leaving behind his wife Chandan Devi, who also died in the year 1990, and three sons namely, Pratap Singh, Jogendar Singh & Guruvachan Singh – defendants in the suit and three daughters namely, Smt. Ram Kaur, Smt. Har Kaur & Smt. Harvansh Kaur. The plaintiff is son of Smt. Ram Kaur, daughter of Amar Singh & Chandan Devi. He filed suit that he is entitled for 1/12^th share in the suit property being one of the daughter's son of Amar Singh & Chandan Devi which was resisted by the defendants who are sons of Amar Singh stating inter alia that Amar Singh in his lifetime partitioned the suit land and given partition to the plaintiff's mother and as such, in view of earlier partition and allotment of share in land and house to the plaintiff's mother, the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit property.

¶63

The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that Amar Singh – original holder and plaintiff's grand-father, had already given share to the plaintiff's mother Smt. Ram Kaur, as such, the plaintiff is not entitled for partition which was affirmed by the first appellate Court. The said finding has been assailed to be perverse and contrary to record. However, the plaintiff (PW-1) in his cross-examination in para 6 has clearly admitted that he is staying in the suit accommodation given by his maternal grand-father Amar Singh. He has also admitted that his maternal grand-father had given one and half acre land to his mother. Likewise, another witness Janakram (PW-2) has also admitted the fact of partition by Amar Singh amongst his sons and daughters during the lifetime of Amar Singh.

¶64

¶65

As such, the fact of partition and giving land and house in partition to the plaintiff's mother is clearly admitted by the plaintiff himself in paras 6 & 7 of his evidence duly corroborated by another witness Janakram (PW-2) and the plaintiff is residing in the accommodation given by his maternal grand-father. Therefore, the finding recorded by the two Courts below that partition had already taken place during the lifetime of Amar Singh in which house and land were given to the plaintiff's mother is a finding of fact based on the evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. I do not find any substantial question of law for determination in this appeal. However, the decisions cited by Mr. Bajaj, learned counsel for the appellant, are clearly distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the facts of the present case. The appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself without notice to the other side. No order as to cost(s).

¶66

Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶67

Soma

Harvansh Singh v. Pratap Singh (Died) through Legal Hrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harvansh Singh v. Pratap Singh (Died) through Legal Hrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dal Sai and Two Others Vs Amikan and Five Others

Jaiprakash Gupta @ Prem Raghuni Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mahendra Vs Smt. Shanti Bai

Manoj Kumar Vs Smt.Saraswati Devi Sinha

Jalaram Housing Board Cooperative Society Maryadit, Vs Chhattisgarh Housing Board

Mahesh Parakh Vs (Deleted) Smt. Kamladevi Saxena Died Through Lrs. (a) Shri Dr. S. P. Saxena