Dismissed

Jamuna Prasad v. Anjana Bai

Chhattisgarh HC6 May 2023SA/360/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an appeal by plaintiffs challenging a dismissal of their suit for declaration of title to ancestral property. The court held that without documentary evidence of partition and relinquishment, the claim failed and the appeal lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

The appeal having been found devoid of merit is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Jamuna Prasad Vs Anjana Bai — Partition | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

SA No. 360 of 2018

¶4

Jamuna Prasad S/o Bajrangdas Aged About 70 Years R/o Shankar Nagar, Ward No. 10 , Post Office Mohan Nagar, Durg , Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. Farmer, Village Darri, P H N 16, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

¶5

2. Radheshyam S/o Bajrangdas Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Darri, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Anjana Bai D/o Late Bajrangdas Aged About 63 Years R/o Sector 7, Road No. 35, 2-1, Quarter Bhilai Nagar Durg , Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶8

Daramba Bai D/o Late Bajrangdas , R/o Darri, P H N 16, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Collector , District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

¶10

For Appellants:	: Shri Vinod Deshmukh appears
	along with Shri Ritesh Giri, Adv.
For the State/Respondent No.3	: Shri Ravi Pal Maheshwari, P.L.

¶11

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J

Order on board

06.05.2023

Heard on admission.

This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'C.P.C.'), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 07.05.2018 passed by learned Second Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Civil Appeal No.6-A/2017, whereby the learned Appellate Court, while affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2017 passed by the Second Civil Judge Class-II, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No.17-A/2013 has dismissed the plaintiff’s

¶16

claim. The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their descriptions mentioned in the trial Court.

¶17

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit claiming declaration of title with regard to the property in question, i.e., the ancestral property as described in Plaint Schedule “A” situated at village Darri, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon and praying further for the declaration to the effect that the entries made in the revenue records with regard to the defendants are null and void. According to the plaintiffs, a partition had taken place in the year 2001 and since the defendants have relinquished their right, title and interest over the property in question, therefore, they alone are the owner of it, but their sister, i.e., defendant no.1-Smt. Anjana Bai with an ulterior motive filed a petition before the Tahsildar Dongargaon seeking partition of it under Section 178 of the Chhattisagh Land Revenue Code,1959 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code, 1959”), therefore, they have raised an objection in this regard and, based upon their objection, the concerned Revenue Authority has directed the parties to get the title declared from the competent Civil Court, which led to the institution of the suit in the instant nature.

¶18

While contesting the aforesaid claim, it was pleaded by the defendants that no partition as such was ever effected with regard to the alleged ancestral property in the year 2001 nor have they relinquished their right, title and interest as alleged by the plaintiffs, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

What is, therefore, reflected from the pleadings of the parties that the property in question described in Plaint Schedule “A” is admittedly the

¶20

ancestral property and which has been shown to be recorded in the name of their father Bajrang Das as reflected from the Kistbandi Khatauni (Ex.P-6) for the year 2003-04 and It appears further that upon his sad demise, the revenue papers were recorded in the name of his children, i.e., plaintiffs and defendants no.1 and 2.

¶21

According to the plaintiffs, a partition was taken place in the year 2001 and at that particular time no objection was raised by the defendants, who are their sisters and instead they have relinquished their interest over the property in question by executing a deed of Ikrarnama. However, no document as such was placed on record in order to show that the partition as claimed by the plaintiffs was ever taken place in the year 2001, nor any document has been placed on record in order to show that the defendants have relinquished their interest with regard to the property in question in their favour. In view thereof, it is difficult to hold that the plaintiffs alone are the owners of the property in question. The Courts below after considering the evidence led by the parties have, therefore, not committed any illegality in dismissing the plaintiff’s claim and, I do not find any infirmity in the same.

¶22

In view of above, the appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

No order as to costs. Sd/-

¶24

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE

¶25

vivek

Jamuna Prasad v. Anjana Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamuna Prasad v. Anjana Bai

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

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

Lachinder Mandavi Vs Shankar

Rampyare Vs Ramkishun

Parasram Vs Vijay Kumar

Smt. Pushpa Devi Choubey Vs Dev Choubey

Bharat Lal Vs Shiv Kumar and Ors.