Dismissed

Smt. Phulkuwnr v. Suresh Kumar

Chhattisgarh HC4 May 2023REVP/52/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition, the legal representative of the plaintiff challenged a second appeal judgment dismissing her property claim. The court held that the impugned judgment upholding a 'fard batwara' and sale deed had no apparent error on the face of the record. Relying on Parsion Devi, the petition was dismissed as not meriting interference.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was dismissed as it was devoid of merit. The impugned judgment and decree remain unchanged.

Smt. Phulkuwnr Vs Suresh Kumar — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

REVP No. 52 of 2023

¶4

Smt. Phulkuwnr Wd/o Late Shri Bhupeshwar Aged About 67 Years R/o Bhandar Para Gangapur, Surguja (Chhattisgarh)

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Suresh Kumar S/o Banafar Ram Prajapati Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Gangapur, P.S. Batauli, Tahsil Lindra, District Surguja (Defedants)

¶8

Maniram Yadav S/o Jagdish Prasad Yadav Aged About 47 Years Caste Ahir, R/o Village Kuniya, (Bijalhawapara) Mainpat, Police Station Kamleshwapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Jagesjwar Uadav S/o Dangaram Aged About 57 Years Caste Ahir, R/o Village Raghunathpur, Police Station Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶10

(Deleted) Kaiya (Died) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 05-07-2022.

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Surguja District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Kavilaso D/o Late Dhanu Aged About 86 Years W/o Late Patar Sai Occupation House Wife, R/o Village Gangapur, Post Lamgaon, P.S. Batauli, Tahsil Lundra, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh)

¶13

Santosh Kumar S/o Late Chengda Aged About 45 Years Occupation Agriculture, Cast Kumhaar, R/o Village And Post Bilaspur, P.S. And Tahsil Batauli, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶14

Ramawadh S/o Late Chengda Aged About 30 Years Occupation Agriculture, Cast Kumhaar, R/o Village And Post Bilaspur, P.S. And Tahsil Batauli, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶15

Ratmaniya D/o Let Nanhu Aged About 67 Years Wd/o Let Sunda Ram, Sister Of Late Bhupeshwar, R/o Village Bimla, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, (Chhattisgarh)

¶16

---Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. S.A. Ansari, Advocate For Respondent No. 5/State: Mr. Ravi Pal Maheshwari, P.L.

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order on Board

¶19

04.05.2023

¶20

This review petition has been preferred by legal representative of plaintiff No.2, namely, Bhupeshwar questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2023, passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 712 of 2019, whereby, this Court while affirming the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2019 passed by 5^th

¶21

Additional District Judge, Ambikapur District – Sarguja in Civil Appeal No. 67-A/2018 has dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. The parties shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the trial Court.

¶22

¶23

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the sister of plaintiff No. 1 (Kavilaso) namely, Kaiya Bai, who was impleaded as defendant No. 1 in the suit has sold the suit property described in plaint scheduled ‘C’ by virtue of three registered deed of sales in favour of defendants No. 2 to 4 in excess of her share, therefore, the alleged registered deed of sale as executed by her with regard to the excess of her interest be declared as null and void while modifying the judgment and decree passed by this Court.

¶25

From perusal of the record, it, however, appears that while taking into consideration the “ fard batwara”, marked as Ex.D-1, it was held that the plaint schedule ‘C’ property has fallen in share of said Kaiya Bai, who sold the same by executing the three registered deed of sales (Ex.P2, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4), all dated 28.09.2004, in favour of defendant No. 2 (Suresh Kumar), defendant No. 3 (Mani Ram Yadav) and defendant No. 4 (Jageshwar Yadav). Since by virtue of the impugned judgment decree, the validity of the said “ fard batwara” (Ex. D-1) has been upheld by holding that the plaint schedule ‘C’ property has fallen in her (Kaiya Bai) share, therefore, the contention as made by the petitioner herein cannot be held to be sustainable. At this juncture the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Parsion Devi and Others versus Sumitri Devi and Others reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715, is to be seen, wherein it has been held at para 9, which is relevant for the purpose, read as under -

¶26

“9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid principles, it is, thus, evident that even if

¶28

¶29

the decision is erroneous, the same by itself would not amenable or permissible to be corrected in review jurisdiction unless and until the mistake or error is shown to be apparent on the face of the record, which however, I do not find the same in the impugned judgment and decree.

¶30

In view of above, the impugned judgment and decree is not required to be interfered in this review jurisdiction. Accordingly, The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.

¶31

No order as to costs.

¶32

Sd/(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

¶33

vaishali

Smt. Phulkuwnr v. Suresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Phulkuwnr v. Suresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Dubey (Since Died) Through Legal Heirs Smt. Shakuntala Dubey Vs Shyam Shukla

Chandra Kala Vs Collector Distt. Janjgir Champa Cg and Ors.

Santosh Banote Vs M/S Shree Ram Transport Finance Company Limited

Firatram Vs Mohitram (Dead) Through LRs.

Rajesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Pratap Singh Vs Smt. Ratanbai @ Ratnawali Singh and Anr.