Dismissed

Sukdev And Anr. v. Mangturam And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jul 2022SA/361/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal regarding a suit for recovery of possession of lease-allotted land, the High Court of Chhattisgarh affirmed the dismissal of the suit because the appellants failed to produce the lease deed (Patta) or revenue documents to prove their title, despite undisputed dispossesssion pleadings.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed in limine without notice to the other side. No costs.

Sukdev And Anr. Vs Mangturam And Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Second Appeal No. 361 of 2014

¶4

Sukdev, aged About 49 Years, S/o Late Sadhu, Caste Yadav, R/o Village Kandara, Tahsil Janjgir, District JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

Firatram, aged About 36 Years, S/o Late Sadhu, Caste Yadav, R/o Village Kandara, Tahsil Janjgir, District JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mangturam, aged about 59 Years, S/o Faguram, Caste Binjhwar, R/o Village Kandara, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Lallu, aged about 44 Years, S/o Faguram, Caste Binjhwar, R/o Village Kandara, Tahsil Janjgir, District JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Mallu, aged about 35 Years, S/o Faguram, Caste Binjhwar, R/o Village Kandara, Tahsil Janjgir, District JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- the District Collector, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

________________________________________________________________ For Appellants : Mr. Somnath Verma, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Not noticed. For Respondent No.4/State : Mr. Anil Tripathi, Panel Lawyer.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶15

Judgment On Board

¶16

21/07/2022

¶17

Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the Appellants herein/Plaintiffs against the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.08.2014 passed by learned Second Additional District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa

¶18

(C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.67-A/2014 arising out of judgment and decree dated 29.08.2009 passed by learned Second Civil Judge Class-I, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa(C.G.) in Civil Suit No.333-A/2005 by which the Trial Court as well as lower First Appellate Court have dismissed the suit of the Plaintiffs.

¶19

Facts of the case are that before the Trial Court, the Appellants herein/Plaintiffs have filed the Civil Suit for recovery of possession of the suit land admeasuring area 0.90 acre from the Survey No.659/2014, 659/2015 & 659/2016 situated at Village Kandara, Board of Revenue Corporation Baloda, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). The case of the Plaintiffs is that the suit land was allotted on lease to father of the Plaintiffs by the competent authority of the State Government. After getting actual physical possession of the suit land, the Plaintiffs and their father spent huge amount to make it arable. The Plaintiffs were on continuous possession of the land and were getting agricultural production each and every year. In the year 1999, the Respondents herein/Defendants dispossessed the Plaintiffs from the suit land, therefore, the Plaintiffs filed the suit for obtaining the possession of the suit land from the Respondents/Defendants.

¶20

The Defendants appeared before the Trial Court and submitted their joint written statements. During pendency of the trial, they became absent, therefore, the Trial Court proceeded ex-parte against them. The Plaintiffs led ex-parte

¶21

evidence.

¶22

After hearing of the parties and recording their evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the Plaintiffs on the ground of non-production of lease deed which the Appellate Court has affirmed. Hence, this appeal.

¶23

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants herein/Plaintiffs submits that from the oral evidence adduced by the Plaintiffs, it is well established that the suit land was alloted on lease to father of the Plaintiffs and initially father of the Plaintiffs thereafter, the Plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land. From the evidence itself, it is also well established that in the year 1999, the Defendants physically dispossessed the Plaintiffs from the suit land inspite of that both the Courts below dismissed the suit, therefore, the judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below are erroneous and liable to be set-aside.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellants herein/Plaintiffs and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶25

It is undisputed that the Plaintiffs were filed the suit on the ground that the suit land was alloted to their father by the State Government and they were in continuous possession of the suit land. It was further pleaded by them that they were dispossessed by the Defendants forcibly in the year 1999. On perusal of the evidence adduced by the Appellants/Plaintiffs before the Trial Court, it appears that

¶26

the Plaintiffs have not produced any lease deed which was executed in favour of their father, the Plaintiffs and their witnesses unable to produce any evidence on the basis of which it can be established that the suit land was alloted on lease ( Patta ) to their father and they have also not produced any revenue documents with regard to their title on the suit land. They are totally failed to produce any documents on the basis of which it can be proved that they were in possession of the suit land since 1999. Therefore, in my considered opinion the Trial Court has rightly rejected the suit preferred by the Appellants herein/Plaintiffs which was rightly affirmed by the lower First Appellate Court.

¶27

The above concurrent finding of both the Courts below are finding based on material available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and the appeal does not involves any substantial question of law.

¶28

Consequently, I do not find any infirmity in the findings so recorded by the Courts below. It therefore deserves to be and are hereby affirmed.

¶29

The second appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed in limine without notice to the other side. No cost(s).

¶30

Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶31

Shubham

Sukdev And Anr. v. Mangturam And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukdev And Anr. v. Mangturam 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

Smt.Sunita Toppo Vs Nirmal Toppo

Champa Bai Vs Leelamoti

Kashiram Vs Bhupendra And Anr.

Tularam Vs Milapa Bai And Ors.

Rajendra Singh Bajwa Vs Satish Minocha And Ors.

Vijay Agrawal Vs Lalit Agrawal