Allowed

Noni Bai and Ors. v. Chhatarbai and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC1 Feb 2021SA/91/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the appeal, setting aside findings by lower courts that dismissed a title suit. The High Court held that evidence from the vendor's heirs and the attesting witness overwhelmingly proved the plaintiff was the real purchaser, despite a clerical discrepancy in a certified copy of the sale deed.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is allowed; the finding that the plaintiff is not the real purchaser is set aside; the plaintiff is declared the title-holder entitled to mutation of name.

Noni Bai and Ors. Vs Chhatarbai and Ors. — Specific Performance | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

Second Appeal No. 91 of 2012

¶5

1. Noni Bai W/o Chhote Nanku @ Biashu, Aged about 65 years.

¶6

2. Gangaram S/o Chhote Nanku @ Biashu, Aged about 33 years.

¶7

3. Balakram S/o Chhote Nanku @ Biashu, Aged about 23 years.

¶8

4. Ramprasad S/o Chhote Nanku @ Biashu, Aged about 24 years.

¶9

All are by Caste Mouwar R/o Village Thakurpali,
Tahsil Sarangarh,Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---Appellants/LRs. Of Plaintiff

¶11

Versus

¶12

1. Chhatarbai W/o Nanku, Aged about 51 years, Caste Mouwar, Village Thakurpali.

¶13

2. Govind S/o Mahesh, Caste Satnami.

¶14

3. Hemlal S/o Mahesh, Caste Satnami.

¶15

4. Naindas S/o Mahesh, Caste Satnami.

¶16

5. Gahin Wd/o Mahesh, Caste Satnami.

¶17

All are R/o Village Khursi, Tahsil Sarangarh,
Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

--- Respondents/Defendants

¶19

 For Appellants :- Mr. R.K. Pali, Advocate
 For Respondents :- None

¶20

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board

¶22

01/02/2021

¶23

1. This second appeal preferred by the

¶24

appellants/LRs. of the plaintiff was admitted
for hearing on 13/01/2016 by formulating the
following substantial question of law :-

¶25

“Whether the Courts below were justified in
dismissing the suit by holding that the
plaintiffs have failed to prove purchase of
the land in dispute by Chhote Nanku,
despite evidence of Dhanka Ram (P.W.2), an
attesting witness of the sale deed and the
evidence of continuance possession of the
plaintiffs over the land in dispute and
admission of plaintiffs claim by defendants
No. 2 to 5/legal representatives of
vendor – Mahesh ?”

¶26

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

¶27

2. The original plaintiff Chhote Nanku instituted a suit principally against defendant No. 1 who is his brother's widow for declaration of title and permanent injunction stating inter alia that he is the real purchaser of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 275/1 ख area 0.202 hectare situated at Village Thakurpali, Distt. Raipur which he purchased from one Mahesh vide registered sale

¶28

¶29

deed dated 06/03/1992 (Ex. P/1) for a cash
consideration of Rs. 11,000/-, as such, he is
entitled for decree as claimed and to get his
name mutated in the revenue records as the
title-holder of the suit land.

¶30

3. Resisting the suit, defendant No. 1 filed her written statement stating that the suit land was purchased by her husband Bade Nanku vide registered sale deed dated 06/03/1993 (Ex. D/1) from Mahesh.

¶31

4. Defendants No. 2 to 5, who are the legal heirs of Mahesh, have also filed their written statement and have admitted that Mahesh sold the suit land in favour of the plaintiff i.e. Chhote Nanku.

¶32

5. Learned trial Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 29/03/2011, holding that the word 'Chhote' was inserted in the sale deed just before Nanku in Ex. P/1, however, the said word is missing in Ex. D/2 which is a certified copy of the sale deed executed by Mahesh in favour of Nanku, as such, it cannot be held that plaintiff is the

¶33

¶34

real purchaser of the suit land, which was then
agreed and concurred by learned first appellate
Court in the appeal preferred by the
appellants/LRs. of plaintiffs vide impugned
judgment and decree dated 26/11/2011 against
which this second appeal has been preferred in
which substantial question of law has been
formulated and set out in the opening paragraph
of the judgment.

¶35

6. Mr. R.K. Pali, learned counsel for the

¶36

appellants/LRs. of plaintiff, would submit that
both the Courts below have concurrently erred in
not appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence on record properly as firstly, the
attesting witness of the sale deed namely Dhanka
Ram (P.W. 2) has been examined and he has
clearly stated that the suit land was purchased
by Chhotte Nanku, secondly, defendants No. 2 to
5 who are legal heirs of the seller Mahesh have
also stated that the suit land was sold by
Mahesh to Chhote Nanku and lastly, Makbook Ahmad
Khan (P.W. 3), officer from the office of Sub-
Registrar, Sarangarh has been examined who
brought the original sale deed and clearly
stated that the suit land was purchased by

¶37

¶38

Chhote Nanku, as such, the overwhelming evidence
on record has been overlooked by both the Courts
below and plaintiff's suit has wrongly been
dismissed by holding that plaintiff has failed
to establish execution of the sale deed in his
favour.

¶39

7. None for respondents, though served.

¶40

8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, considered his submissions and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶41

9. The only question for consideration herein is whether the original plaintiff Chhote Nanku is the real purchaser of the suit land vide Ex. P/1.

¶42

10. Both the Courts below have disbelieved the sale deed (Ex. P/1) only on the ground that the word 'Chhote' has been inserted before the name Nanku and therefore, it cannot be held that plaintiff is the real purchaser of the suit land.

¶43

11. It is the case of the plaintiff that he purchased the suit land from one Mahesh whose legal heirs have been impleaded as a party defendant to the suit being defendants No. 2 to

¶44

5 who have clearly admitted in their written

¶45

¶46

statement that Mahesh sold the suit land in
favour of Chhote Nanku. Apart from this, the
attesting witness of the sale deed namely Dhanka
Ram (P.W. 2) has been examined as a witness on
behalf of the plaintiff and he has categorically
admitted that suit land was purchased by
plaintiff Chhote Nanku and he has signed the
sale deed in the office of the Sub-Registrar
signifying the fact that Mahesh has sold the
suit land in favour of Chhote Nanku. Not only
this, the officer from the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Sarangarh namely Makbool Ahmad Khan
(P.W. 3) has also been examined who brought the
original sale deed and stated the fact that the
suit land has been purchased by Chhote Nanku
from one Mahesh on 06/03/1993 by registered sale
deed.

¶47

12.The aforesaid overwhelming evidence clearly
establishes in fact, that Chhote Nanku has
purchased the suit land from Mahesh and merely
on the basis of some discrepancy in other
certified copy of the sale deed in which the
word 'Chhote' has been omitted and it has been
inserted in front of the name Nanku cannot be a
ground to disbelieve the plaintiff, particularly

¶48

¶49

when the legal heirs of Mahesh i.e. defendants
No. 2 to 5, the attesting witness namely Dhanka
Ram (P.W. 2) and further when the officer from
the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Sarangarh has
been brought before the Court which indicates
only one thing that the suit land has been
purchased by the plaintiff. Not only this, from
the evidence of possession led by the plaintiff
over the suit land, it cannot be held that he is
not the real purchaser of the said suit land
vide sale deed dated 06/03/1993 (Ex. P/1).

¶50

13. Consequently, the aforesaid finding recorded by the trial Court affirmed by the first appellate Court holding that plaintiff is not the real purchaser of the suit land on the strength of the sale deed (Ex. P/1) is perverse and contrary to the record and is hereby set aside and it is declared and decreed that plaintiff is the title-holder of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 275/1 ख area 0.202 hectare situated at Village Thakurpali, Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt. Raipur and accordingly, on that basis, plaintiff (now his LRs.) is entitled to get his name mutated in the revenue records.

¶51

¶52

14.The second appeal is allowed to the extent

¶53

indicated herein-above. No cost(s).

¶54

15. Decree be drawn-up accordingly.

¶55

Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge

¶56

Harneet

Noni Bai and Ors. v. Chhatarbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noni Bai and Ors. v. Chhatarbai 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

Budeshwar Singh Vs Krishna Pratap Singh and Ors.

Shivnath Vs Anita

Devnarayan Vs Yuna Ram (Died) Through Lrs.

Manrakhan Vs Kunwariya Bai and Ors.

Anil Paikra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandrapal Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh