First Appeal against a decree declaring plaintiffs as owners of suit land and passing permanent injunction. Dismissed as appeal lacked merit; trial court evidence regarding possession and land identity was found sufficient.
Appeal dismissed; no interference with trial court decree declaring title to plaintiffs.
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, BILASPUR
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON 10.08.2022
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 09.11.2022
First Appeal No. 453 of 2017
---- Appellants
Versus
Nos. 1 to 4 R/o Ward No. 6, Hatri Chowk Sakti, Police Station and Tahsil Sakti, Civil and Revenue District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
2
For Appellants Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 4 Shri Manoj Paranjpe and Shri Ankit Singhal, Advocates. For Respondent No.5 None. For Respondent No.6/State Shri Neeraj Pradhan, Panel Lawyer.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
C A V Judgment
Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
3
Ramkunwar in the revenue records. Out of the said land, 0.23 acres of land (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’) was purchased by plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and Om Prakash, husband of plaintiff No.4, through registered sale deed on 07.05.1991. After purchase of suit land, the names of plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 and husband of plaintiff No.4, Om Prakash were mutated in the revenue records and after mutation, the suit land was recorded as Khasra No.815/47 area 0.23 acre / 23 decimal and Rinpustika was also issued in their favour by Tahsildar. After the death of Om Prakash on 29.09.1995, the name of his wife i.e. plaintiff No.4 Gayatri Devi was recorded along with other plaintiffs. The remaining land i.e. 0.2 decimal of Khasra No.815/46 was used for public water tank which is adjoining the south side of the plaintiffs land which has been described in Schedule A annexed with the plaint.
4
to know that Late Babulal Upadhyay got his name recorded in the revenue records in respect of the suit land without any title or registered deed in connivance with the Nazul Officer, JanjgirChampa, on the basis of order dated 14.02.2002 passed in Revenue Case No.34-A-20(4)/2001-02. It is further averred that the plaintiffs are the owner and possession holder of the suit land which is wrongly recorded as Nazul Sheet No.21C, Plot No.31 in the name of Durga Prasad, defendant No.1 whereas the said Durga Prasad has no right or title over the suit land and as such the sale deeds dated 18.08.2008 being null and void are liable to be set aside. During pendency of the suit, the defendants have constructed a boundary wall in front of the suit land which is illegal and, therefore, the order dated 14.02.2002 be declared null and void, a decree of permanent injunction be passed against defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in respect of the suit land and the plaintiffs be declared as owner and possession holder of the suit land.
5
suit land was actually a nazul land. The plaintiffs are claiming Nazul land of the defendants which was in possession of late Babulal Upadhyay since 1950 and plaintiffs are showing that land as Khasra No.815/47. He further stated that plot No.31 nazul sheet 21C, area 120 x 100 = 12000 square feet / 885 square meter land was recorded in the name of Babulal Upadhyay on the basis of valid documents. After death of Babulal Upadhyay, name of his son Durga Prasad was recorded and thereafter, Durga Prasad through two sale deeds on 18.8.2008 sold plot No.21/2, area 771 square meters to Trilok Chand Jaiswal (defendant No.3) and 71 square meter land to Pritam Singh Gabel (defendant No.2). After purchase of the said land, the names of defendant Nos. 2 & 3 were recorded. The said land was in their possession and they also constructed a boundary wall in their land. He also stated by defendant No.1 that suit land which is described by the plaintiffs is a land of Patwari record whereas the land of the defendants is Nazul land and both the lands are situated at different places.
6
No.815/46 is not at all in existence and that the allegation of the said land being Nazul Plot No.31/2 is baseless and illegal.
the oral and documentary evidence adduced by them, the trial Court recorded finding in the affirmative against issues No.1, 2, 4, 5
7
8
oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, it is crystal clear that the suit land was purchased by the plaintiffs through registered sale deed dated 07.05.1991 from Heeralal and others and since then they are in peaceful possession of the same. He also submits that Late Babulal Upadhyay, father of defendant No.1 Durga Prasad Upadhyay in connivance with the Revenue Authorities illegally got the same registered in his name and after his death it came to be recorded in the name of defendant No.1 who sold the said land to the appellants herein. As such, defendant No.1 has no right or title over the suit land and being so the sale deeds dated 18.08.2008 executed in favour of the appellants are per se illegal and void. He also submits that the trial Court considering all the relevant aspects of the matter in light of the overall evidence adduced by the parties has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree which warrants no interference by this Court.
9
10
sold Nazul Plot No.31/21, area 2 decimal of 25 decimal – 77 square meter to defendant No.2 Preetam Singh Gabel vide registered sale deed dated 18.08.2008 and also sold Nazul Plot No.31/21, area 885 square meter = 21 decimal of 25 decimal – 771 square meter to defendant No.3 Trilokchand Jaiswal vide registered sale deed dated 18.08.2008 and handed over possession of above lands to purchasers.
11
Singh, Sakti has been recorded in aforementioned Khasra number.
12
13
land. The finding so recorded by the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, which do not call for any interference by this Court.
Yogesh / Akhilesh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the land purchased by plaintiffs is the suit land bearing Khasra No.815/46/47?
Whether the order recording suit land as Nazul land in the name of Babulal Upadhyay is null and void?
Whether the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 selling suit land to appellants is null and void?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Preetam Singh Gabel
Trilok Chand Jaiswal
Shyam Sunder Agrawal
Radheshyam Agrawal
Kailash Chandra
Gayatri Devi
Goutam Bhaduri
Radhakishan Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
