Hearing on admission of a second appeal challenging concurrent findings of fact regarding title and partition shares in a property dispute. The court held no substantial question of law was involved.
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
SA No.137 of 2011
1.Mu. Rechi, W/o Deshiya Ram
2.Mansu, S/o Deshiya Ram3.Budhu, S/o Deshiya Ram
All R/o Village Andharjhar (Lakuvakona),
Tahsil Manora, District Jashpur (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
1.Smt. Chaiti Bai, W/o Mohar Ram, aged about 28 yers, Caste Kahar, R/o Village Baherna, Tahsil Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.)2.State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, District Jashpur (C.G.)---- Respondents
For AppellantsMr. S. S. Rathore, Adv.
On behalf of Ms. Hamida
Siddiqui, Adv.
For Respondent-StateMr. Suyash Dhar, PL
Hon'ble Justice Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
01/03/2021
1. Heard on admission and formulation of
substantial question of law in the second2
appeal preferred by the appellants
/plaintiffs.
2.By the impugned judgment and decree, the
First Appellate Court has dismissed the
appeal preferred by the appellants
/plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated
18.01.2011 passed by the learned District
Judge, Civil District Jashpur(C.G.) in
Civil Appeal No.28A/2010 affirming the
judgment and decree dated 29.12.2007 of the
Trial Court passed by the learned Civil
Judge Class-II, Jashpur, District Jashpur
(C.G.) in Civil Suit No.05A/2006 partly
decreeing the suit filed by the
appellants/plaintiffs.
3.Mr. Rathore, learned counsel for the
appellants/plaintiffs, would submit that
both the Courts below have grossly erred in
concurrently holding that the plaintiffs
are not the exclusive owner of the suit
property and are only entitled for half
share in the suit property and the
3
defendant No.1 Chaiti Bai, being the
daughter of Chheriya, is also entitled for
half share in the suit property by
recording a finding perverse to the record.
As such, the appeal be admitted for hearing
by formulating substantial question of law.
4.I have heard learned counsel for the
appellant, considered his submissions made
herein-above and also went through the
records with utmost circumspection.
5.The suit property was originally held by
Batai. He had four sons namely Andha,
Jhumra, Chutiya and Liti. Chutiya had two
sons Chheriya and Motu. The plaintiffs are
the legal representatives of the original
plaintiff Deshiya, who was the son of Liti,
whereas the defendant No.1 is the daughter
of Chheriya. The dispute relates to
property left by Chutiya and Liti. The
original plaintiff filed a suit for
declaration of title, possession as also to
declare the orders dated 10.12.2004 &
4
18.03.2005 passed by the Tahsildar, Manora
as null and void claiming that the
defendant No.1 Chaiti Bai is not the
daughter of Chheriya, therefore, she has no
right and title over the suit property and
the plaintiff be declared the exclusive
owner of the suit property.
6.The Trial Court after appreciating the oral
and documentary evidence available on
record held that Chaiti Bai, being the
daughter of Chheriya, is also entitled for
half share in the suit property, therefore,
the plaintiff is not the exclusive owner of
the suit property and he would get only
half share in the suit property and the
orders dated 10.12.2004 and 18.03.2005
passed by the Tahsildar, Manora are not
null and void. The judgment and decree of
the Trial Court has also been affirmed by
the First Appellate Court, against which
this second appeal has been preferred.
7. Since the suit property is held jointly by
5
Chutiya and Liti, the findings recorded by
the two Courts below that the defendant
No.1 Chaiti Bai, being the daughter of
Chhuriya, is also entitled for half share
in the suit property and the plaintiff is
only entitled for half share in the suit
property and the orders dated 10.12.2004
and 18.03.2005 passed by the Tahsildar,
Manora are not null and void are findings
of fact based on the material available on
record, which is neither perverse nor
contrary to the record.
8. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this second appeal so filed by the appellants/plaintiffs. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine without notice to the other side. No order as to cost (s).
Sd/-
Nirala
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a substantial question of law arises from the concurrent findings that the appellant is not the exclusive owner of the suit property.
Whether the finding that the defendant is entitled to half share in the suit property is perverse or contrary to record.
Mu. Rechi
Mansu
Budhu
Chaiti Bai
State of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court