Dismissed

Dharamdas v. (Deleted) Pahatiya Satnami

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jun 2021SA/159/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the second appeal in a partition suit limine. The court held that findings by lower courts regarding ancestral and self-acquired property were evidentiary inferences, not perverse, forming no substantial question of law.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed in limine without notice to other side. No cost.

Dharamdas Vs (Deleted) Pahatiya Satnami — Partition | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

SA No. 159 of 2011

¶5

Dharamdas S/o Pahatiya Satnami, aged about 52 years, R/o Village Fingeshwar, Tahsil Raji, District Raipur, C.G.

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. (Deleted) Pahatiya Satnami Vide Court Order Dated 09-02-2021

¶9

2. Anand Ram S/o Pahatiya Satnami Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Fingeshwar, Tahsil Rajim, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4. Samarin Bai W/o Gopal Satnami Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Beldih, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

5. Gangabai W/o Ghuruva Satnami Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Nawagaon, Tahsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Maheshwari W/o Bhaiyalal Satnami Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Torla, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh .

¶14

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

For Appellant :- Mr. Vivek Tripathi, Advocate.
For Respondents No.2,4-6 :- Mr. A.P. Sharma, Adv.

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

21/06/2021

¶20

1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken
up through video conferencing.

¶21

2. Heard on admission and formulation of
substantial question of law in second appeal
preferred by the appellant/plaintiff.

¶22

3. By the impugned judgment and decree, the first
appellate Court has dismissed the appeal
preferred by the appellant / plaintiff
affirming the judgment and decree of the trial
Court partly decreeing the suit of the
appellant / plaintiff.

¶23

4. Mr. Vivek Tripathi, learned counsel for the
appellant / plaintiff, would submit that the
firstappellateCourtisabsolutely

¶24

¶25

unjustified in dismissing the appeal filed by

¶26

the appellant / plaintiff by recording a
finding which is perverse to the record. It
ought to have held that the property shown in
Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-3 are benami property, which
were not the exclusive property of plaintiff-
Dharamdas, as such, the appeal deserves to be
admittedforhearingbyformulating
substantial question of law for determination.

¶27

5. The plaintiff and defendant No.2 are sons of
defendant No.1-Pahatiya and defendants No.4 to
6 are sisters of the plaintiff and defendant
No.2. The plaintiff filed a suit that the suit
property is an ancestral property in which the
plaintiff, defendants No.1 & 2 and defendants
No.4 to 6 all have equal share i.e. 1/3rd
share, in which defendants No.1 and 2 filed
their written statement and also filed counter
claim stating that the property covered by Ex.
P-1 to Ex. P-3 are also benami property and,
as such, this property be also subjected to
partition.

¶28

¶29

6. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and

¶30

documentary evidence available on record, by

¶31

its judgment and decree dated 29.06.2010,
partly decreed the suit holding that the suit
property is ancestral property of the
plaintiff, defendants No.1 & 2 and defendants
No. 4 to 6 and each one have 1/6th share in the
property. The trial Court has also held that
as claimed by defendants No.1 and 2, only the
property bearing Khasra Nos.2680 and 1454 are
joint family property and remaining properties
which are subject matter of Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-3
are self-acquired property of plaitniff-
Dharamdas and accordingly, partly decreed the
suit, against which, the plaintiff filed first
appeal stating that other property which is in
the name of the plaintiff, Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-3,
are also ancestral property purchased in the
name of the plaintiff, therefore, the trial
Court ought to have held that it is also the
ancestral property of the parties. The first
appellate Court did not accept the plea of the
plaintiff and dismissed the appeal.

¶32

¶33

7. Findings recorded by two Courts below that
only the property shown in Exs. D-6 and D-7
bearing Khasra Nos.2680 and 1454 are the
property purchased by defendant No.1 and it is
ancestral property and the property purchased
by plaintiff vide Exs. P-1 to P-3 are self-
acquired property of plaintiff-Dharamdas are
findings of fact based on evidence available
on record. These findings are neither perverse
nor contrary to record, as such, I do not find
any substantial question of law for
determination of this second appeal.

¶34

8. Accordingly, the second appeal being deviod of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed in limine without notice to other side. No cost(s).

¶35

Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge

¶36

Ankit

Dharamdas v. (Deleted) Pahatiya Satnami

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharamdas v. (Deleted) Pahatiya Satnami

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaiprakash Shukla Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Rangari Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

O.P. Rathore Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Gajadhar Deadthr. Lrs Vs Ramsharan and Ors.

Amresh Singh Deseased Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Krishna Dev Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.