Dismissed

Smt. Shanta Gupta v. Suryaprakash and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC12 Dec 2022SA/223/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an appeal against the dismissal of a title suit. The court held the appellant failed to prove ownership because neither the real owners nor attesting witnesses of the sales deeds were examined, despite recorded discrepancies in names. No substantial question of law arose.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Smt. Shanta Gupta Vs Suryaprakash and Anr. — Specific Performance | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Order Sheet

¶4

SA No. 223 of 2015

¶5

Smt. Shanta Gupta Versus Suryaprakash And Anr.

¶6

12/12/2022 Shri Manoj Paranjape, Advocate appears along with Shri Shubhank Tiwari, counsel for the Appellant.

¶7

Shri Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer for the State/ Respondent No.2.

¶8

Arguments heard on admission.

¶9

Judgment/order dictated in open Court. Signed and dated separately.

¶10

Sd/-

¶11

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

¶12

¶13

NAFR

¶14

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶15

Second Appeal No. 223 of 2015

¶16

Smt. Shanta Gupta W/o P.C. Gupta Aged About 54 Years R/o Dabripara Bilaspur, At Present, Saraswati Nagar, Dabripara, Bilaspur, Police Station And Post Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶17

---- Appellant

¶18

Versus

¶19

Suryaprakash S/o Late P.S. Naidu Aged About 59 Years R/o Parvati Niwas (Wrongly Mentioned As Parvati Niwasi), Shivaji Marg, Tikrapara, Bilaspur, Police Station And Post Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶20

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶21

---- Respondents

¶22

For Appellant	: Shri Manoj Paranjape along with
	Shri Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent No.2/State	: Shri Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer

¶23

Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

¶24

Judgment/Order on Board

¶25

12.12.2022

¶26

This appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC'), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2015, passed by the 2^nd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (CG) in Civil Appeal No.49-A/2014, whereby the learned appellate Court, while affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2012 passed by the 1^st Civil Judge, Class-I, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.110-A/2009, has dismissed the Plaintiff's suit. The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the Court below.

¶27

Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the Plaintiff instituted a suit

¶28

¶29

claiming declaration of title by submitting, inter alia, that by virtue of the registered deed of sale dated 04.12.1990, she purchased the property bearing Khasra No.993/4-{k, admeasuring 0.06 acres from K. Maheshwar Rao s/o K. Venkat Rao through power of attorney holder, namely, Suryaprakash, defendant No.1 herein, while property bearing Khasra No. 993/4-=, admeasuring 0.10 acres from R.Venkatesulu S/o S. Ramaswami through his power of attorney holder namely, Suryaprakash under the sale dated 04.12.1990. It is pleaded further that since the date of purchase, she is in possession over the alleged suit lands, and when she went to her said property on 15.05.2006 along with her labourers and contractor, defendants No. 1 and 2 had obstructed her from raising any kind of construction, and therefore, she has been constrained to institute the suit in the instant nature, instituted on 24.08.2006.

¶30

Defendant No.1-Suryaprakash, who was the power of attorney holder of the said vendors, was proceeded ex-parte, while defendant No.2/State has contested the suit by saying that the property bearing Khasra No. 993/4-=, admeasuring 0.15 acres is recorded in the name of one Bhuwanlal S/o Lorik Yadav, while the suit property bearing Khasra No.993/4-{k is recorded in the name of State and that the property bearing Khasra No. 993/4, which is not the subject matter of the suit is recorded as “ Bade Jhaad ke Jungle ”. Therefore, the claim as made by the Plaintiff deserves to be dismissed.

¶31

The trial court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, arrived at a conclusion that the suit property bearing Khasra No.993/4-= is recorded in the name of Bhuwanlal S/o Lorik Yadav, whereas, the suit property bearing Khasra No.993/4-{k is recorded in the name of State government and, accordingly, it was held that defendant No.1, the power of attorney holder of said vendors, was not authorized to alienate the aforesaid suit

¶32

¶33

properties in favour of plaintiff. The suit was, thus, dismissed and, was affirmed further by the lower appellate court in appeal preferred by the Plaintiff. Being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff submits that the findings recorded by the Courts below without considering the alleged sales (Exs. P-1 and P-2) in its proper manner, has erred in holding that the suit properties bearing Khasra No. 993/4-= is recorded in the name of Bhuwanlal S/o Lorik Yadav, while the suit property being bearing Khasra No.993/4-{k in the name of State government while dismissing the Plaintiff's claim.

¶35

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff and perused the entire record carefully.

¶36

From perusal of the record, it appears that by virtue of the registered deed of sale dated 04.12.1990(Ex.P-2), the suit property bearing Khasra No. 993/4-=, admeasuring 0.10 acres was sold by defendant No.1Suryaprakash, while acting as a power of attorney holder of one R. Venkatesulu S/o S. Ramaswami to the Plaintiff, while the suit property bearing Khasra No.993/4-{k was sold while acting as power of attorney of K. Maheshwar Rao S/o K. Venkat Rao under sale dated 04.12.1990 (Ex.P-1). Although, the registered deed of sales were executed as such, however, a perusal of the document, known as Khasra Panchashala for the year 2009-2010, marked as Ex. D2-C, would reveal the fact that the suit property bearing Khasra No.993/4-= admeasuring 0.15 acres is recorded in the name of Bhuwanlal S/o Lorik Yadav, while the suit property bearing Khasra No.993/4-{k, admeasuring 1.00 acres is recorded in the name of State government. Both the suit properties are thus,

¶37

¶38

appear to be recorded in different names, who were not the vendors of the alleged sales(Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2). That apart, in order to establish the fact that the Plaintiff has purchased those suit properties under the said sales (Exs.P-1 and P-2), the burden was heavily upon the Plaintiff to establish the same. However, the Plaintiff has completely failed to establish the said fact as none of the attesting witnesses of those sales were examined nor the real owners of those properties were examined. Even defendant No.1- Suryaprakash, who sold those suit properties while acting as a power of attorney holder of those vendors was not examined. In view thereof and in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, it is difficult to hold that the Plaintiff has acquired the ownership of the said suit properties under those sales. The courts below, therefore, after considering the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties have not committed any illegality in dismissing the Plaintiff's claim.

¶39

In view of the aforesaid background, I do not find any question of law, much less the substantial questions of law, which arise for determination in this appeal. The appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed.

¶40

No order as to costs.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE

¶43

sunita

Smt. Shanta Gupta v. Suryaprakash and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shanta Gupta v. Suryaprakash and Anr.

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

Jageshram Jain Vs Smt. Hirmotin

Kamalnarayan Sinha and Another Vs Manthirram Sahu and Others

Lalit Agrawal Vs Vijay Agrawal

Ramratan andOrs. Vs Santosh Kumar andOrs.

Rb Traders Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Daulal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh