Hon'ble Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal dismissed in limine a second appeal challenging the dismissal of a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, and permanent injunction. The court held that the finding of fact regarding the nature of land ownership needed no interference.
Second appeal dismissed in limine without notice to 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.83 of 2009
Silbia W/o Albis aged about 59 yearsJerome S/o Jitiya Aged about 48 yearsSmt. Flora W/o Liban aged about 45, By Caste Orawn, R/o Vilage Tukupani Tahsil Kunkuri, Distt.Jashpur---- Appellants/PlaintiffsVersus
Polikar S/o Johan aged about 50 yearsJakhariyas S/o Johan aged about 40 yearsVijo Kumari D/o Johan, aged about 42 yearsPaulus S/o Rodha, aged about 61 yearsKu. Ritta Eka D/o BiliyamAshok Kumar S/o BiliyamViddo Savita @ Anna W/o Biliyam all by caste Orawn, No.1 to 4 all are R/o Village Tukupani, Tahsil Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur and No.5 to 7 present address Village Sundar Nagar, T.E.P.O. Varun Nagar, Distt. Sirvadagar (Assam)---- DefendantsThe State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Distt. Jashpur---- Respondents
For Appellants / Plaintiffs:-
Mr.Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent No.8 / State: -
Ms Veena Nair, Dy.A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
10/07/2020
Proceedings of this matter have been taken upthrough video conferencing.
Heard this second appeal on the question of admission and formulation of substantial question of law preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs.By the impugned judgment and decree, the first appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred2
by the plaintiffs affirming the judgment and decree
of the trial Court dismissing the suit for
declaration of title, confirmation of possession
and permanent injunction.
Mr.Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel for theappellants/plaintiffs, would submit that both the
Courts below concurrently erred in dismissing the
suit by holding that the suit property was not
received by the plaintiffs in partition and it was
purchased by Rodha and Johan by sale deed dated
29.3.55 (Ex.D-1) and in cultivating possession, by
recording a finding which is perverse to record and
the appeal deserves to be admitted for hearing by
formulatingthesubstantialquestionfor
determination.
The parties are related to each other. The dispute relates to the suit land bearing Khasra No.88/8 area 1.21 acres situated at village Tukupani, which the plaintiffs claimed to be an ancestral property and received by them in family partition and incultivating possession immediately thereafter,
whereas the defendants who are successor-in-
interest of Johan and Rodha claimed the suit
property by sale deed dated 29.3.55 said to have
been purchased from one Kamal vide Ex.D-1 and the
plaintiffs' ancestral Jitiya has not given any
money to Johan (father of defendants No.1 to 3 and
3
husband of defendant No.4) and Rodha (father of
defendant No.5).
The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment and decree dated 28.12.2004, dismissed the suit holding that the suit property is selfacquired property of Rodha and Johan which they purchased from one Kamal on 29.3.55 (Ex.D-1) and they are in cultivating possession immediately thereafter being self-acquired property of them. It it is not ancestral property of the parties and at the time of purchase of said land, Poulus and Johan had already separated from the plaintiffs' ancestral Jitiya, which the first appellate Court also affirmed on appeal being preferred by the plaintiffs.Finding recorded by two Courts below that the suit property was self-acquired property of Paulus (defendant No.5) and Johan (father of defendants No.1 to 3 and husband of defendant No.4), which they acquired by sale deed dated 29.3.55 (Ex.D-1) from one Kamal is pure and simple finding of fact based on evidence available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to record and since then they are in cultivating possession of the suit land, as such, both the Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiffs have no title over the4
suit land and it is self-acquired property of
defendants No.1 to 5, which 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 ofmerit 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 that the suit property was self-acquired and not ancestral requires formulation of a substantial question of law.
Whether the lower courts erred in holding that the plaintiffs have no title over the suit land.
Silbia W/o Albis
Jerome S/o Jitiya
Smt. Flora W/o Liban
Polikar S/o Johan
Jakhariyas S/o Johan
The State of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court