This second appeal was dismissed in limine without notice. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the findings of the courts below regarding the fraud and title dispute were based on evidence and were not perverse.
Second appeal dismissed in limine without notice to the 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 AT BILASPUR
Second Appeal No. 147 of 2011
Sonai Bai D/o Gansudas, Aged about 44 years,
Caste Panika, R/o Ganeshpur, Tahsil Ambikapur,
Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
---Appellant/Plaintiff
Versus
1. Bundki D/o Etwar Sai, Caste Rajwar, Aged about 44 years.
2. Omprakash S/o Late Sukhlal, Aged about 8 years, through natural guardian mother Sanjho, Aged about 50 years, Caste Panika.
Both are R/o Village Ganeshpur, Tahsil Ambikapur,
Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
3. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents/Defendants
For Appellant:-Mr. A.K. Prasad, Advocate
For State:-Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order on Board (Through Video Conferencing)
17/06/2021
1. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial
question of law in this second appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of2
CPC against the impugned judgment and decree
passed by the first appellate Court affirming the
judgment and decree by which trial Court
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for
declaration of title and permanent injunction.
2.Mr. A.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the
appellant/plaintiff, would submit that both the
Courts below have gravely erred in holding that
the suit property has not been sold by Gansu in
favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 by playing fraud
by recording a finding which is perverse and
contrary to the record. He would also submit
that plaintiff has the right and title over the
suit property, as such, the appeal be admitted by
formulating substantial question of law.
3.It is the case of the plaintiff that suit
property was originally held by Ganpati, who died
issueless, and since plaintiff's father Gansu was
the sole surviving heir of Ganpati, he succeeded
the suit property and defendant No. 1 namely
Bundki, by playing fraud and by making Gansu used
to heavy consumption of liqour, got the sale deed
dated 25/05/2007 executed by Gansu in her and
defendant No. 2's favour fraudulently, as such,
3
no title has been transferred by that
fraudulently executed sale deed in favour of the
defendants and plaintiff is the title-holder of
the suit land, therefore, she is entitled for
decree for declaration of title and permanent
injunction.
4.Upon appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence on record, learned trial Court dismissed
the suit holding that witness to the sale deed
dated 25/05/2007 has not been examined by the
plaintiff and as such, plaintiff has failed to
prove that the said sale deed has been obtained
by defendant No. 1 by playing fraud with Gansu
i.e. father of the plaintiff. Learned trial Court
also held that by sale deed dated 25/05/2007,
Gansu sold 2.155 hectares of suit property to
defendants No. 1 and 2 which is less than the
suit property shown in Schedules 'A' and 'B'
appended with the plaint admeasuring 9.69
hectares and 10.98 hectares respectively, as
such, plaintiff has failed to prove that the said
sale deed was obtained by defendants No. 1 and 2
by fraud and even otherwise, plaintiff is not in
possession of the suit property, which was also
4
affirmed by the first appellate Court in the
appeal preferred by the plaintiff.
5.Both the Courts below have recorded the findings
that plaintiff has failed to prove that the sale
deed 25/05/2007 has been obtained by defendants
No. 1 and 2 from plaintiff's father Gansu by
playing fraud and plaintiff has further failed to
prove she is the exclusive owner of the suit
property and Gansu has only sold less than his
share in the total suit property mentioned in
Schedule 'A' and 'B' of the plaint. The said
findings recorded by both the Courts below are
findings of fact based on evidence available on
record which is neither perverse nor contrary to
the record. I do not find any substantial
question of law for admission of this appeal.
6. Accordingly, the second appeal stands dismissed in limine without notice to the other side. No cost(s).
Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge
Harneet
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a substantial question of law arises under Section 100 of CPC challenging the dismissal of a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
Whether the finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the sale deed was obtained by fraud is perverse or contrary to the record.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sonai Bai D/o Gansudas
Bundki D/o Etwar Sai
Omprakash S/o Late Sukhlal
The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Ambikapur
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court