Dismissed

Gandhi Behra (Dead) v. Vidyamati

Chhattisgarh HC10 Mar 2021SA/319/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a second appeal in limine without notice. The court rejected the appellant's claim that a substantial question of law arose regarding the dismissal of his title suit, holding the lower courts correctly found the plaintiff had no title as the sellers lacked rights under a prior partition order. The court further noted the legal bar on raising adverse possess

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed in limine without notice.

Gandhi Behra (Dead) Vs Vidyamati — Partition | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

Second Appeal No. 319 of 2010

¶5

1.Gandhi Behra (died) through LRs. :-

¶6

a. Padamlochan Behra, Aged about 63 years, S/o
Late Shri Gandhi Behra R/o Thakur Para – Gargoda,
Tahsil Gargoda, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

b. Devendra Kumar Behra, Aged about 56 years, S/o
Late Shri Gandhi Behra, R/o Village Chirramuda,
Post Banai, Tahsil Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.

¶8

c. Sanatan Behra @ Amandeep Singh, Aged about 50
years, S/o Late Shri Gandhi Behra, R/o 529 – SBI
Colony Near Shiv Mandir Garden Sundar Nagar,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

d. Ku. Rukhmani Behra, Aged about 58 years, D/o
Late Shri Gandhi Behra,

¶10

e. Smt. Haripriya Behra, Aged about 48 years,
Wd/o Late Shri Ghanshyam Behra.

¶11

f. Premanand Behra, Aged about 20 years, Late
Shri Upendra Behra.

¶12

d. e. and f. are R/o Village Chirramuda, Post
Banai,TahsilTamnar,Distt.Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh, hence name of above mentioned
persons are required to be add in place of
applicant in the cause title.

¶13

---Appellants/LRs. Of Plaintiff

¶14

 Versus

¶15

1. Vidyamati, Aged about 40 years, D/o Aanantram Behranibai W/o Late Sahettar.

¶16

¶17

2. Foolmati D/o Late Shri Aanantram Behra (dead) through Lrs.

¶18

(I) Aruna, Aged about 50 years, W/o Shri Mitthu
Soai, R/o Village Gersa, Tahsil Ghargoda, Distt.
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶19

(ii) Shailkumar @ Usha Bai (died) thourh Lrs.

¶20

 a. Sudama, Aged about 25 years, S/o Late Shri
Uderam, Agriculturist and R/o Village Chirramura,
Tahsil Gharghora, Civil and Revenue Distt.
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶21

(iii) Malti, Aged about 45 years, W/o Shri Gopi
Sahu (Behra), R/o Village Fufa, Orisa.

¶22

(iv) Savitri, Aged about 38 years, W/o Shri
Dilip, R/o Village Karaipali, Chhattisgarh.

¶23

(v) Surendra Kumar (died) through LRs. :-

¶24

 a. Smt. Jashovanti Behra, Aged about 60
years, Wd/o Late Surendra Kumar R/o Village
Chirramuda, Post Banai, Tahsil Tamnar, Distt.
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶25

 b. Mahima Behra, Aged about 28 years, W/o
Shri Bhaskar Behra, R/o Village Gohdidipa, Chhal
Road Gharghoda, Post and Tahsil Gharghoda, Distt.
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶26

 c. Alekh Behra, Aged about 25 years, S/o
Late Shri Surendra Kumar R/o Village Chirramuda,
Post Banai, Tahsil Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.

¶27

(vi) Nandlal, Aged about 35 years, S/o Shri
Dhanurjay, R/o Village Chirramuda, Tahsil
Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶28

¶29

(vii) Bhuwanlal, Aged about 32 years, S/o Shri
Dhanurjay, R/o Village Chirramuda, Tahsil
Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶30

3.Chitro D/o Anantram Behra (died) through LRs.

¶31

(I) Sumukhi Behra, Aged about 45 years, D/o Shri
Heeralal Sodhi, R/o Village Bajarmuda,Tahsil
Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶32

(ii) Tankeshwar Behra (died) through LRs. :-

¶33

 a. Janhvi, Aged about 54 years, Wd/o Late
Shri Tankeshwar Behra.

¶34

 b. Yashpal, Aged about 33 years.

¶35

 c. Omprakash Behra, Aged about 29 years.

¶36

Both S/o Late Shri Tankeshwar Behra, No. b.
Mobile Shop Keeper, No. c. Service in Jindal
Power Ltd. All R/o Village Dhanurabhanta, Tahsil
Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶37

(iii) Bijju, Aged about 35 years, S/o Shri
Lalkunwar, Caste Sondhi, R/o Village Teram,
Tahsil Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶38

(iv) Sudha, Aged about 40 years, D/o Shri
Lalkunwar,CasteSondhi,R/oVillage
Dhauranbhata, Tahsil Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.

¶39

(v) Anita, Aged about 32 years, Caste Sondhi, R/o
Village Kurmibhauna, Tahsil Gharghoda, Distt.
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶40

4.Smt. Udyamati D/o Aanantram Behra.

¶41

5.Smt. Sakrawati D/o Aanantram Behra.

¶42

6. Mehtar S/o Daniram Behra (dead) through legal heirs :-

¶43

¶44

(I) Smt. Kamlabai, Aged about 45 years, W/o Late
Mehtar Prasad Sodhi.

¶45

(ii) Smt. Padmabai (died and deleted).

¶46

(iii) Laxmiprasad, Aged about 28 years, S/o Late
Mehtar Prasad Sodhi.

¶47

(iv) Basantibai (died and deleted).

¶48

(v) Savitri Bai (died and deleted).

¶49

(vi) Suresh, Aged about 21 years, S/o Late Mehtar
Prasad Sodhi.

¶50

(vii) Naresh, Aged about 19 years, S/o Late
Mehtar Prasad Sodhi.

¶51

All of them (I to vii) are r/o Village Bhargat,
Tahsil Ghargoda, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶52

7. Chamar Singh, S/o Daniram Behra, R/o Village Chirramuda, Tahsil Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶53

8. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶54

9. Vedmati, Aged about 65 years, W/o Late Vinod Shanker Behra.

¶55

10. Koushal Behra, Aged about 35 years, S/o Late Vinod Shanker Behra.

¶56

11. Bhojram Behra, Aged about 32 years, S/o Late Vinod Shanker Behra.

¶57

12. Savita Behra, Aged about 38 years, D/o Late Vinod Shanker Behra.

¶58

All R/o Village Chirramuda, Sraidipa, PO Banai,
Tahsil Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶59

13. Dhruw Kumar Behra, Aged about 35 years, S/o Late Kartikeya Behra, R/o Village Raipara, P.O.

¶60

¶61

Samkera, Tahsil Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.

¶62

--- Respondents/Defendants

¶63

For Appellants:-Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate
For Respondents :-Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate
For State:-Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. G.A.

¶64

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶65

Order on Board

¶66

10/03/2021

¶67

1.Heard on admission and formulation of

¶68

substantial question of law in this second
appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff (now
his Lrs.) 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.

¶69

2.Mr. Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel for the

¶70

appellant/plaintiff (now his Lrs.), would submit
that both the Courts below have erred in holding
that plaintiff has no right or title over the
suit property by recording a finding which is
perverse and contrary to the record as
defendants No. 6 and 7 namely Mehtar and Chamar
Singh had right to alienate the suit property in
favour of the plaintiff by registered sale deed

¶71

¶72

dated 12/07/1974 (Ex. P/1), as such, the appeal
deserves to be admitted by formulating
substantial question of law.

¶73

3. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title stating inter alia that he purchased the suit property from defendants No. 6 and 7 by registered sale deed dated 12/07/1974 (Ex. P/1) and as such, became the title-holder of the said suit property and also came into its possession from that day, therefore, he has also perfected his title by way of adverse possession.

¶74

4.Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral
and documentary evidence on record, dismissed
the suit holding that the suit property fell in
the share of Anantram Behra i.e. father of
defendants No. 1 to 5 vide Exhibit D/3 which is
order of partition dated 03/09/1942, as such,
defendants No. 6 and 7 had no right to alienate
the suit property in favour of plaintiff and
further held that plaintiff has also failed to
establish his plea of adverse possession over
the suit land. On appeal being preferred,
learned first appellate Court affirmed the
findings recorded by the trial Court and
dismissed the appeal as well.

¶75

¶76

5.Both the Courts below have relied upon Exhibit
D/3 i.e. order of partition dated 03/09/1942 and
have clearly and categorically reached to the
conclusion that in partition, suit property fell
in the share of Anantram i.e. father of
defendants No. 1 to 5, as such, defendants No. 6
and 7 i.e. sons of Daniram, had no right to
alienate the suit property in favour of
plaintiff and no title has been conferred upon
the plaintiff by the sale deed dated 12/07/1974
(Ex. P/1) and accordingly, dismissed the suit of
the plaintiff.

¶77

6.The aforesaid finding recorded by both the
Courts below is a correct finding of fact based
on correct appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence on record which requires no
interference by this Court. Apart from claiming
title on the basis of sale deed (Ex. P/1),
plaintiff also claimed title on the basis of
adverse possession. It is well-settled law that
plea of title on merits and plea of adverse
possession cannot be raised together and they
are destructive to each other, as such, the
plea raised by the plaintiff that he has
perfected his title by way of adverse possession

¶78

is also not available. Thus, both the courts
below have concurrently and rightly dismissed
the suit of the plaintiff. I do not find any
merit in the appeal warranting admission by

¶79

formulating substantial question of law.

¶80

7. The second appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed in

¶81

limine without notice to the other side.

¶82

Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge

¶83

Harneet

Gandhi Behra (Dead) v. Vidyamati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gandhi Behra (Dead) v. Vidyamati

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

Budharu (Dead) through Lrs Vs (a) Smt. Puniya Bai (Dead)

Mahamani Bai and Ors. Vs Makhmohan and Ors.

Shabbir Husain (Petitioner in Person) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mujib Rehman and Ors. Vs Smt.Mariyam and Ors.

Madan Lal Sharma Vs Comm. Municipal Corp. Bhilai and Ors.

Narayan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh