Firatram filed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC challenging the dismissal of his suit for declaration of title. The bench found no infirmity in the lower courts' judgment, rejecting the appeal as devoid of merit and dismissing it.
The second appeal under Section 100 CPC was dismissed.
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
Second Appeal No. 45 of 2013
---- Appellant
Versus
All are R/o Bade Raveli, Tahsil And Thana Malkhoaroda, District Janjgir-Champa
---- Respondents
For Appellant :Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate appears along with Shri Alok Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent Nos.3/State :Shri Raghvendra Verma, Govt. Advocate
Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
Judgment/Order on Board
04.05.2023
Heard on admission.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff- Firatram 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 06.11.2012 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa in Civil Appeal No.23-A/2012, whereby,
2
the learned appellate court while affirming the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Malkharoda, District Janjgir Chama(CG) in Civil Suit No.102-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.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Plaintiff- Firatram instituted a suit claiming declaration of title and for confirmation of possession with regard to the property in question bearing Khasra Nos. 679/3 admeasuring 0.16 acre and 678/4 admeasuring 0.10 acre situated at village Bade Raveli, Tahsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa(CG). According to the Plaintiff, the property in question came in his father’s share, namely, Kulkit Ram in partition effected in 1965, however, due to mistake, it was shown to be recorded in revenue papers in the name of his uncle, namely, Dauvaram, the father of defendants No. 1 and 2. It is pleaded further that since the property in question was wrongly shown to be recorded in the name of said Dauvaram, therefore, he executed a rectified deed (Sudhar Patra) on 02.07.1991 agreeing the fact that the same had came in favour of Plaintiff’s father (Kulkit Ram). Further contention of the Plaintiff is that the property in question which came in his father’s share was sold to him by executing a registered deed of sale dated 25.08.1994 for a consideration of Rs.5,200/-, while putting him in possession thereof and the revenue papers were accordingly recorded in his name. It is pleaded further that the revenue entries as made in his favour was questioned by the defendants in appeal before the Sub-Division Officer, Sakti, who has remanded the matter and directed the concerned Tehsildar to examine the same afresh and thereafter, the Tehsildar,
3
Malkharoda vide its order dated 11.11.2002 in Revenue Case No. 14/A6/2000-01 has directed for recording the name of defendants 1 and 2, which led to the institution of the instant nature.
3. While admitting the factum of partition, the defendants 1 and 2 have contested the suit and that by filing the counter claim, it was pleaded by them that the property in question had fallen in their father’s share, namely, Dauvaram and the revenue papers were accordingly recorded in his name. According to them, the Plaintiff has illegally and forcefully obtained the possession of the suit property in the year 2004, therefore, a proceeding was initiated by them before the concerned Revenue Authority as per the provisions prescribed under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959(hereinafter referred to as the Code, 1959) for removal of alleged encroachment, where the Tehsildar Malkharoda vide its order dated 28.04.2006 in Revenue Case No.04/A70/2004-05, has found the Plaintiff’s possession illegal and, accordingly while imposing penalty of Rs.100/- upon the Plaintiff directed him and his son-Heera Singh to handover the vacant possession of it, but the same has not been provided, therefore, they are entitled to obtain the vacant possession of it.
4. What is therefore, reflected from the averments made by the parties that the property in question, i.e. Khasra Nos.679/3 admeasuring 0.16 acre and 678/4 admeasuring 0.10 acre situated at village Bade Raveli, District Janjgir Champa was partitioned amongst the predecessor in interest of the parties and, according to the Plaintiff, it was fallen in share of his father, Kulkit Ram, but owing to mistake, it was shown to be recorded in the name of his brother, namely, Dauvaram, the father of defendants 1 and 2. Although, the Plaintiff has pleaded as such, but in
4
order to establish the said fact, the Plaintiff has failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence so as to hold that it was fallen in his father’s share, as claimed by him. Instead, it was shown to be recorded in the revenue papers in the name of said Dauvaram. Even, by order dated 11.11.2002, it was directed to be recorded in the name of defendants 1 and 2 in a revenue proceeding registered as Revenue Case No.14-A-6/2000-01 and which has never been questioned by the Plaintiff .
5. In so far as the deed of rectification(Sudhar Patra), marked as Ex.P6, executed by the defendants’ father(Dauvaram) on 02.07.1991, is concerned, the Plaintiff has, however, failed to prove its authenticity by examining of its attesting witnesses.
6. Since the property in question was not found to be fallen in share of Plaintiff’s father, therefore, the right, title and interest cannot be held to be conferred upon the Plaintiff on the strength of the alleged registered deed of sale (Ex.P3), executed by his father on 25.08.1994.
7. In so far as the counter-claim is concerned, wherein, it has been alleged by the defendants 1 and 2 that they have been dispossessed illegally by the Plaintiff in the year 2004, it appears that a claim for its removal was made by them against the Plaintiff and his son, namely, Heera Singh as per the provisions prescribed under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 before the concerned Revenue Authority. The said proceeding was registered as Revenue Case No.04-A-70/2004-05 and vide order dated 28.04.2006 (Ex.P1), the Tahsildar, Malkharoda in the said proceeding has directed for the removal of alleged illegal possession of the Plaintiff while imposing fine amount of Rs.100/-. The said order has attained its finality by efflux of time and despite of that, the Plaintiff has retained the
5
possession of the suit land illegally. The Courts below have, therefore, while considering the evidence led by the parties have not committed any illegality in allowing the counter-claim entitling the defendants 1 and 2 to get its vacant possession from the Plaintiff.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case based upon the evidence led by the parties, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below. Consequently, I do not find any question of law, much less the substantial questions of law, which arise for determination in this appeal.
9. The appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs. Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE
sunita
6
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
SA No. 289 of 2018
Manharan Lal Dewangan Versus President Nagar Panchayat Parpodi & Ors.
08/02/2023 Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel for the Appellant.
Shri Ravi Pal Maheshwari, Panel Lawyer for the State/ Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Arguments heard on admission.
Judgment/order dictated in open Court. Signed and dated separately.
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge
sunita
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal filed under Section 100 CPC raising questions of law against the dismissal of the plaint deserves allowance.
Whether the lower courts committed any illegality by allowing the defendants counter claim for vacant possession of the property.
Whether the Plaintiff successfully proved that the disputed property fell in his father's share during the partition.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Firatram
Mohitram (Dead) Through Lrs.
Lalbahadur
State Of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay S. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
