Dismissed

Shivnath, v. Rahim

Chhattisgarh HC5 Jan 2021SA/30/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appeal in limine. The court held that the appellants failed to adequately challenge the validity of the sale deed by seeking its cancellation and proof of its nullity, rendering the lower courts' dismissal justified without a substantial question of law. The appeal was dismissed without notice to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed in limine without notice; no cost ordered.

Shivnath, Vs Rahim — Partition | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Second Appeal No. 30 of 2010

¶5

1. Shivnath, S/o Late Devgan, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Ramchandrapur, Tahsil Pal, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶6

2. Ramnath, S/o Late Devgan, Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Ramchandrapur, Tahsil Pal, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.,

¶7

3. Jainath, S/o Late Devgan, Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Ramchandrapur, Tahsil Pal, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.,

¶8

4. Jagarnath, S/o Late Devgan, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Ramchandrapur, Tahsil Pal, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.,

¶9

5. Prithvinath, S/o Late Devgan, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Ramchandrapur, Tahsil Pal, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.,

¶10

---- Appellants

¶11

Versus

¶12

1. Rahim, S/o Late Hasnumiyan, Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Ramchandrapur, Tahsil Pal, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.,

¶13

2. Saleem (Dead) Through Lrs. Sarfulla Ansari (Minor) S/o. Saleem, aged about 15 years, through his natural guardian/next friend (aunt) Johara Khatun, W/o. Abbas Ansari, R/o. Village Garuwasoti, Post Office Peska, Distt. Garwa (Jharkhand)

¶14

3. Aslam, S/o Late Hasnumiyan, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Ramchandrapur, Tahsil Pal, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶15

4. Antaz, S/o Late Hasnumiyan, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Ramchandrapur, Tahsil Pal, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶16

5. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur Chhattisgarh.

¶17

---Respondents

¶18

For Appellants	: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate
For Respondents 1 to 4	: Shri Arun Shukla, Advocate
For Respondent No.5/State	: Shri Ravi Bhagat, Dy, Govt. Advocate

¶19

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

05.01.2021.

¶22

1. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in

¶23

¶24

this second appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellant Court affirming the the judgment and decree by which the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.

¶25

2. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that both the courts below have absolutely unjustified in dismissing the suit holding that the plaintiffs were required to seek cancellation of sale deed dated 07.5.1964 executed by father of plaintiffs namely Devgan in favour of father of defendants 1 to 4 namely Hasmuniyan, by recording a finding which is perverse to the record, therefore, the appeal involves substantial question of law for determination and the appeal may be admitted for hearing by formulating substantial question of law.

¶26

3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the records of the Courts below. 4 . The suit property was admittedly held by Devgan, father of the plaintiffs and he sold the said suit property to Hasnumiyan, father of defendants 1 to 4 by a registered sale deed dated 07.5.1964 and the defendants are in possession. The plaintiffs after death of their father filed a suit on 08.9.2008 for declaration and permanent injunction claiming that sale deed executed by their father is null and void which was obtained by father of the defendants by fraud, without even filing and proving the sale deed dated 07.5.1964. In that event, both the Courts below held that the plaintiffs were required to seek cancellation of the sale deed dated 07.5.1964 and atleast declaration to that effect, therefore, no decree can be granted in their favour. The plaintiffs in order to succeed, ought to have

¶27

¶28

questioned the sale deed dated 07.5.1964 and by filing a copy of sale deed it could have been proved that it is null and void. But copy of sale deed was neither produced by the plaintiffs nor the sale deed was questioned by seeking cancellation. In that view of the matter, both the Courts below are absolutely justified in holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief. The finding recorded by both the Courts below in this regard is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law in this appeal for admission.

¶29

5. The second appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed in limine without notice to the other side. No cost(s).

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE

¶32

Bini

Shivnath, v. Rahim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivnath, v. Rahim

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

Premsheela Vs Prasanna Kumari and Others

Khurshida Bano Vs Mu.Imtiyaz Bee and Others

Ram Prasad Yadav and Anr. Vs Smt.Shanti Agrawal and Others

Smt. Viraso @ Kayaso Bai and Ors. Vs Bishveshwar @ Bindeshwari Nand and Ors.

Guthlu Vs Ghasis and Another

Sant Kumar Thakur Vs P.Anthony