The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of two common second appeals challenging findings of title and encroachment. It held that the factual disputes were not perverse and raised no substantial question of law, dismissing the appeals in limine without notice.
The second appeals were dismissed in limine without notice to the other side.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Second Appeal No. 547 of 2015
Raju Prasad, S/o Hariprasad Sao, Aged about 49
years, Caste Sahu, Occupation Service, Presently
R/o In front of Harrapara Pariyojana Office
Baikunthpur, P.S. and Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt.
Korea, Chhattisgarh.
---Appellant/Defendant No. 1
Versus
1. Jeevati Bai W/o Late Hariprasad Sao, Aged about 78 years, Caste Sahu R/o In front of Harrapara Pariyojana Office, P.S. and Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh. --- Plaintiff
2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Korea, Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
Second Appeal No. 548 of 2015
Raju Prasad, S/o Hariprasad Sao, Aged about 49
years, Caste Sahu, Occupation Service, Presently
R/o In front of Harrapara Pariyojana Office
Baikunthpur, P.S. and Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt.
Korea, Chhattisgarh.
---Appellant/Defendant No. 1
Versus
1. Jeevati Bai W/o Late Hariprasad Sao, Aged about 78 years, Caste Sahu R/o In front of Harrapara Pariyojana Office, P.S. and Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh. --- Plaintiff
2
2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Korea, Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
For Appellant |
:- |
Mr. Kishore Bhaduri and |
|---|---|---|
Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocates |
||
For Respondent 1 |
:- |
Mr. Mahendra Dubey, Advocate |
For Respondent 2/State |
:- |
Mr. Sanjay Pathak, P.L. |
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order on Board
09/03/2021
1. Since both of these second appeals have arisen out of a common judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, therefore, both of these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in these second appeals preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree by which learned first appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by defendant No. 1 affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court and partly allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff.
3. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No. 1, would mainly submit in second appeal No. 547/2015 that both the Courts
3
below have erred in holding that plaintiff is the
title-holder of the suit land bearing Khasra No.
65/3 क area 0.283 hectare and as such, she is entitled for possession of the house constructed in 900 sq.ft. of the said suit land by her, as such, the appeal deserves to be admitted by formulating substantial question of law.
4. Previously, Raju Prasad, who is defendant No. 1 herein, had filed Civil Suit No. 6A/08 which has been dismissed by the trial Court and affirmed by the first appellate Court against which he preferred Second Appeal No. 340/2011 and it has also been dismissed today holding that Jeevati Bai i.e. plaintiff herein is the title-holder of the suit property bearing Khasra No. 65/3 क area 0.283 hectare. Thereafter, on the basis of the said finding, Jeevati Bai (plaintiff) filed Civil Suit No. 22A/2011 stating that defendant No. 1 Raju Prasad has encroached upon 900 sq.ft. of the house constructed by her on the suit land, therefore, decree for eviction and permanent injunction be granted in her favour, which has been accepted by the trial Court as well as by the first appellate Court holding that plaintiff is the title-holder of the entire suit land and
4
defendant No. 1 has unauthorizedly encroached
upon two rooms of the house constructed by her in
900 sq.ft. of the suit land.
5. The aforesaid finding recorded by both the Courts below that plaintiff is the title-holder of the entire suit land bearing Khasra No. 65/3 क area
0.283 hectare and defendant No. 1 has
unauthorizedly encroached upon the house
constructed by the plaintiff in 900 sq. ft. of
the suit land is a finding of fact based on
evidence available on record which is neither
perverse nor contrary to the record and does not
involve any substantial question of law. Learned
first appellate Court has not committed any
illegality in affirming the judgment and decree
of the trial Court. However, the first appellate
Court has rightly reversed the finding of the
trial Court directing plaintiff to pay additional
court fees which is absolutely in accordance with
law.
6.Both of these second appeals, deserve to be and
are accordingly dismissed in limine without
notice to the other side.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Harneet
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of the second appeals is legally sustainable on the facts found by the lower courts.
Whether the findings regarding title ownership and encroachment involve a substantial question of law.
Raju Prasad
Jeevati Bai
State of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court