Dismissed

Rameshwar Prasad v. Lahri Ram and Another

Chhattisgarh HC8 Mar 2021SA/289/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur dismissed the second appeal. The appellant challenged the reversal of the trial Court's dismissal of a suit for partition, arguing the first appellate Court's finding on joint family property was perverse. The bench found no perversity or illegality.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed in limine without notice to the other side.

Rameshwar Prasad Vs Lahri Ram and Another — Partition | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

Second Appeal No. 289 of 2011

¶5

Rameshwar Prasad S/o Late Dharamjeet Kunbi, Aged
about 45 years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o
Village Tenduva, Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt.
Korea, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

 ---Appellant/Defendant No. 1

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Lahri Ram S/o Late Dharamjeet Kunbi, Aged about 55 years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Tenduva, Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh. --- Plaintiff

¶9

2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

--- Defendant No. 2

¶11

 --- Respondent

¶12

For Appellant :-Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate
For State :-Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Dy. A.G.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

08/03/2021

¶16

1. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial

¶17

question of law in this second appeal preferred
by the appellant/defendant No. 1 against the

¶18

impugned judgment and decree passed by the first
appellate Court reversing the judgment and

¶19

¶20

decree by which learned trial Court dismissed
the suit of the plaintiff.

¶21

2.Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel for

¶22

the appellant/defendant No. 1 would submit that
the first appellate Court has committed
illegality in reversing the judgment and decree
of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the
plaintiff by recording a finding which is
perverse and contrary to the record, as such,
the appeal deserves to be admitted by
formulating substantial question of law.

¶23

3.Plaintiff and defendant No. 1, both are brothers.
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title,
partition and possession to the extent of ½
share in the suit property stating that the said
suit property has not been partitioned during
the lifetime of their father, therefore, he is
entitled for decree as claimed, which was
opposed by his brother defendant No. 1 stating
that the suit property has already been
partitioned during the lifetime of their father,
as such, plaintiff is not entitled for any share
in the suit property.

¶24

4. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral

¶25

and documentary evidence on record, dismissed

¶26

¶27

the suit of the plaintiff which was then
reversed by the first appellate Court. Learned
first appellate Court, while reversing the
judgment and decree of the trial Court and
thereby, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff,
has clearly recorded a finding that plaintiff
and defendant No. 1, both are brothers and the
suit property situated at Village Tendua, Tahsil
Baikunthpur was owned by their father and
further no partition with regard to the suit
property had taken place during the lifetime of
their father, as such, plaintiff is entitled for
½ share in the suit property as it is the joint
family property of plaintiff and defendant No.
1.

¶28

5.The aforesaid finding recorded by the first
appellate Court that suit property, originally
held by father of plaintiff and defendant No. ,

¶29

is their joint family property in which
plaintiff as well as defendant No. 1, both are
entitled to get ½ share is a finding of fact
based on evidence available on record which is
neither perverse nor contrary to the record. I

¶30

do not find any perversity or illegality in the

¶31

said finding and it does not involve any
substantial question of law for determination.

¶32

¶33

6. The second appeal, being devoid of merits,

¶34

deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed in

¶35

limine without notice to the other side.

¶36

Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge

¶37

Harneet

Rameshwar Prasad v. Lahri Ram and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar Prasad v. Lahri Ram and Another

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

Insecticide India Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sudesh Kumar Nand Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sushil Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Patiram Vs Faguwa and Ors.

Jamidar and Ors. Vs Jamuni Bai and Anr.

Vijay Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh