Dismissed

Anak Ram v. Tulsi Ram

Chhattisgarh HC19 Jan 2021SA/295/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC regarding partition of an ancestral house, the High Court held that the lower courts correctly found all three brothers entitled to equal shares as the house was ancestral, despite a contentious unregistered sale deed. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed; parties to bear their own costs; appellate decree to be drawn up.

Anak Ram Vs Tulsi Ram — Partition | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

Second Appeal No. 295 of 2011

¶5

Anakram S/o Vishal @ Billu Satnami, R/o House No.
100/4, Chotteram Nagar, Behind Jashanmal Harimal
Mill, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

 ---Appellant/Defendant

¶7

 Versus

¶8

1. Tulsiram S/o Vishal @ Billu Satnami, R/o Near Surya Nagar Railway Line, Village Gogaon, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2. Mayaram S/o Sukhchand Satnami, R/o Near Surya Nagar Railway Line, Village Gogaon, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

--- Respondents/Plaintiffs

¶11

For Appellant :-Mr. B.P. Sharma and
Ms. Anmol Sharma, Advocates
For Respondents:- Mr. Y.C. Sharma and
Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocates

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

19/01/2021

¶15

1. This second appeal preferred by the

¶16

appellant/defendant under Section 100 of CPC was
admitted for hearing 20/10/2011 on the following
substantial question of law :-

¶17

¶18

“Whether the findings relating to
partition of the house in question of
both the Courts below are perverse ?”

¶19

[The parties will hereinafter be referred as per
their status and ranking shown before the trial
Court.]

¶20

2. The dispute relates to the ancestral house of the parties situated at Ramnagar, Raipur.

¶21

3. Vishal had three sons namely Tulsiram i.e. plaintiff No. 1, Sukhchand who died leaving behind his son Mayaram i.e. plaintiff No. 2 and Anakram i.e. the sole defendant. It is admitted position on record that Vishal purchased the suit house in the name of his elder son plaintiff No. 1 on 07/03/1973.

¶22

4. The two plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the suit house shown in the map annexed with the plaint stating inter alia that the total area of the suit house i.e. 460 sq. ft. was partitioned between the three brothers on 06/08/1987 and thereafter, they started living separately in their shares, but since the defendant was raising construction on the area of the suit house which fell in plaintiffs' share, they filed a report in

¶23

¶24

the police station and thereafter, filed a suit
for decree for possession.

¶25

5.Resisting the suit, defendant filed his written
statement stating inter alia that no such
partition tool place between the plaintiffs and
the defendant on 06/08/1987 and in fact, on
partition the plaintiffs were given the land
situated at Village Datrenga and the suit house
was given to the defendant. Furthermore,
plaintiff No. 1 Tulsiram had already sold his
land in Datrenga on 19/01/1987 and started living
at Village Gogaon after constructing their house,
as such, the defendant is in possession of the
suit house after getting his name registered in
the municipal corporation records. The defendant
also stated that in the civil suit preferred by
one Malti Bai being Civil Suit No. 05/1990, the
defendant has already been held to be the title
holder and possession-holder of the suit house.

¶26

6.Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral
and documentary evidence on record, decreed the
suit vide its judgment and decree dated
31/03/2003 holding that since the suit house is
admittedly the house held by the father of
plaintiff No. 1 and defendant and the grandfather

¶27

¶28

of plaintiff No. 2 namely Vishal, as such, all
three of them are entitled for 1/3rd share in the
suit house which was affirmed by the first
appellate Court in the appeal preferred by the
defendant vide its impugned judgment and decree
dated 09/09/2004 against which this second appeal
has been preferred by the defendant in which
substantial question of law has been formulated
and set out in the opening paragraph of this
judgment.

¶29

7.Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant/defendant, would submit that both
the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in
decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs holding that

¶30

the suit house is the ancestral house of the
plaintiffs as well as the defendant, as such,
each of them is entitled for 1/3rd share in the
suit house. Such a finding recorded by both the
Courts below is a totally perverse finding
especially when Exhibit P/1 i.e. sale deed is an
unregistered document and is inadmissible in
evidence in view of Section 49 of the Indian
Registration Act, 1908, as such, the said finding
recorded by both the Courts below is liable to be
set aside.

¶31

¶32

8.Mr. Sachin Nidhi, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents/plaintiffs, would support the
impugned judgment and decree passed by the first
appellate Court affirming the judgment and decree
of the trial Court and would submit that the
second appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶33

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶34

10. Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence available on record has clearly recorded the finding that it is the admitted position on record that the suit house is the ancestral property which was held by the father of plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant and the grandfather of plaintiff No. 2 namely Vishal who is said to have purchased the suit house in the

¶35

name of his elder son Tulsiram and further held
that since Exhibit P/1 is an unregistered
document and it can only be read for collateral
purpose, as such, the suit house being the
ancestral property of the parties, all three of
them i.e. plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and the
defendant are entitled for 1/3rd share each. The

¶36

¶37

said finding recorded by the trial Court has also
been recorded by the first appellate Court in the
appeal preferred by the defendant.

¶38

11. Both the Courts below have concurrently recorded
the finding that the suit house is the ancestral
property of the parties having been purchased by
the father of plaintiff No. 1 and defendant and
grandfather of plaintiff No. 2 namely Vishal, as
such, each of them is entitled for 1/3rd share in
the suit house is a finding of fact based on
evidence available on record which is neither
perverse nor contrary to the record. I do not
find any merit in the instant appeal.

¶39

12. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Appellate decree be drawn up accordingly.

¶40

Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge

¶41

Harneet

Anak Ram v. Tulsi Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anak Ram v. Tulsi Ram

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

Biharilal Gupta (Dead) Through Lrs., Vs Chamru Prasad Gupta

Sukhram and Others Vs Shanti Bai and Others

Jagdamba Trivedi Vs Neha Trivedi

Rooplal Vs Kaushal Prasad and Ors.

Ramanand Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harsh Kumar Parakh Vs Smt Kiran Jain and Another