Dismissed

Gajadhar Deadthr. Lrs v. Ramsharan and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jun 2021SA/58/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the plaintiff's challenge to the sale of ancestral land by their deceased father where the plaintiff had acted as an attesting witness to the sale deed executed by his brother (defendant), which the selling father had also executed in favour of the defendant.

What did the court decide?

Disposal in limine without notice to the other side.

Gajadhar Deadthr. Lrs Vs Ramsharan and Ors. — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

SA No.58 of 2012

¶5

Gajadhar (died) through LRs

¶6

1. Smt. Kaushilya Bai, aged 55 years, W/o Late Gajadhar

¶7

2. Rani Bai, aged 35 years, D/o Late Gajadhar

¶8

3. Anjana, aged 30 years, D/o Late Gajadhar

¶9

4. Ashish, aged 25 years, S/o Late Gajadhar

¶10

5. Prahlad, aged 16 years, at present 19 years, S/o Gajadhar

¶11

All are R/o Village Gorakpur, Tahsil
Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

---- Appellant

¶13

Versus

¶14

1. Ramsharan, aged 68 years, S/o Late Mangal Prasad

¶15

2. Smt. Ramrati, aged 65 years, W/o Laxman Prasad

¶16

3. Suresh Prasad, aged 35 years, S/o Laxman Prasad

¶17

All are R/o Village Gorakhpur, Tahsil
Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶18

4. State of Chhattisgarh through the District Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶19

---- Respondents

¶20

For AppellantsMr. Somnath Verma, Advocate

¶21

Hon'ble Justice Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶22

Order On Board

¶23

¶24

21/06/2021

¶25

1. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff.

¶26

2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 23.09.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.14A/2011 affirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 31.07.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.141A/2005, whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit preferred by the appellant/plaintiff.

¶27

3.Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the
appellant/plaintiff, would submit that both
the Courts below have grossly erred in
concurrently holding that the suit land is the
ancestral property of Mangal Prasad and only
on that basis, it cannot be held that the
appellant has no right and title over the suit

¶28

¶29

property by recording a finding perverse to
the record. As such, the appeal be admitted
for hearing by formulating substantial
question of law.

¶30

4. I have heard learned counsel for the

¶31

appellant, considered his submissions made
herein-above and also went through the records
with utmost circumspection.

¶32

5.The suit property was originally held by
Mangal Prasad. He had three sons namely
Gajadhar, Ramsharan and Laxman. The appellants
are the legal representatives (wife and
children) of Gajadhar. The defendant No.1 is
the brother of Gajadhar, whereas the defendant
Nos.2 & 3 are the wife and son, respectively,
of Laxman. Mangal sold the suit property to
defendant No.1 Ramsharan by way of sale deed
dated 17.03.1971, in which Gajadhar stood as
attesting witness. The original plaintiff
Gajadhar filed a suit for declaration of title
on 12.05.2003 with respect to the suit land,
in which it is the stand of the defendant No.1
that his father Mangal has alienated the suit
land and he has purchased the suit land from

¶33

¶34

his father by way of registered sale deed
dated 17.03.1971, in which Gajadhar himself
stood as attesting witness.

¶35

6.The Trial Court after appreciating the oral
and documentary evidence available on record
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by holding
that the suit property is held by defendant
No.1, who has purchased the same from his
father Mangal by way of registered sale deed
dated 17.03.1971, in which the original
plaintiff Gajadhar himself stood as the
attesting witness and interest, if any, has
already been surrendered by the plaintiff and
there is no right or title over the suit land
and even the plaintiff did not seek
cancellation of the sale deed dated
17.03.1971. The judgment and decree of the
Trial Court has also been affirmed by the
First Appellate Court in the appeal preferred
by the appellant/plaintiff, against which this
second appeal has been preferred.

¶36

7. The finding recorded by the two Courts below that Mangal has already sold the suit property to defendant No.1 and Gajadhar himself stood

¶37

¶38

as the attesting witness is a finding of fact
based on the material available on record,
which is neither perverse nor contrary to the
record.

¶39

8. I do not find any substantial question of law for determination in this second appeal so preferred by the appellant/plaintiff. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine without notice to the other side. No order as to cost (s).

¶40

Nirala

Gajadhar Deadthr. Lrs v. Ramsharan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajadhar Deadthr. Lrs v. Ramsharan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaiprakash Shukla Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Rangari Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

O.P. Rathore Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Dharamdas Vs (Deleted) Pahatiya Satnami

Amresh Singh Deseased Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Krishna Dev Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.