This Single Judge court dismissed an appeal against the dismissal of a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The court found no substantial question of law involved, applying the Supreme Court judgment in Hasmat Ali, and held that the High Court's findings on evidence regarding sale deeds warranted no interference.
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
SA No. 524 of 2013
1. Salikram And Anr S/o Kejuram Verma Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Baloudabajar, P.S. And Civil Distt. Baloudabajar, Revenue Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara C.G., Chhattisgarh
2. Mahesh Kumar S/o Kejuram Verma Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Baloudabajar, P.S. And Civil Distt. Baloudabajar, Revenue Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara C.G., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellants
Versus
1. Maneshwari And Ors W/o Mankram Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Police Line, Pension Bada, Raipur, P.S. Civil Line, Distt. Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh
2. Malikram S/o Kejuram Verma Aged About 45 Years R/o Police Line, Pension Bada, Raipur, P.S. Civil Line, Distt. Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Bhukhin Bai @ Malti Bai D/o Kejuram Verma W/o Hariram Verma, R/o Indira Colony, Baloda Bazar, P.S. And Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara C.G., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
4. Leela Bai @ Savitri Bai D/o Kejuram Verma W/o Late Balaram Dhurandher, R/o Bhainsa, Thana And Tah. Arang, Distt. Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5. Sunita D/o Kejuram Verma Aged About 36 Years W/o Vishnu Prasad Verma, R/o Police Colony, Raipur, P.S. Civil Line, Distt. Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6. State Of Chhattisgarh Thru- Collector, Baloda Bazar, Distt. Baloda BazarBhatapara C.G., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Appellants/plaintiffs : Mr. Vivek Tripathi, Advocate For State : Ms. Seema Dixit, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board
08.12.2023
2
the effect that Kejuram (father of the plaintiff) and the defendants constructed a house at Nayapara, District – Baloda Bazar (C.G). Kejuram was posted as Peon in the Agriculture Department and he was a Government Servant. Plaintiff No. 2, at the relevant time, was posted as a Clerk in the Police Department at Dhamtari (C.G), defendant No. 1 is the wife of defendant No. 2, and they were also staying in the same house, and there was no partition between the parties. It is further pleaded that to obtain a loan from the department, a fictitious sale deed was executed in favour of Smt. Maneshwari Devi (respondent No.1/defendant No.2) on 16.06.1988 and one more sale deed was executed on the same date in favour of defendant No. 1 with regard to the suit house. It is also pleaded that the sale deeds executed in favour of defendant No. 1 were sham and those instruments do not confer any right or title in her favour. It is further stated that defendant No. 2 had not taken any permission from the department to purchase the land. The plaintiffs further pleaded that defendant No. 1 being a housewife had no source of income and the house was situated over Nazul land which could not be transferred. An affidavit was also filed by defendant No. 2 whereby he had relinquished his rights over the agricultural land situated in Village Bhawadih and therefore, plaintiffs claimed that they alone are the title holders and owners of property situated in Village Bharwadih. It is also pleaded that no consideration was passed in favour of the purchaser and therefore the Civil Suit was filed. The defendants denied the plaint averments; they stated that Ex. P/6 and the affidavit dated 17.06.1998 are not registered documents therefore, they do not confer any right in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned trial Court held that the plaintiffs could not prove that they have 1/3rd right over the suit house. They could not prove that the registered sale deeds dated 16.06.1988 and 17.06.1998 were fictitious. It is also not proved that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the decree of permanent injunction and that defendant No. 2 has relinquished his right over the suit property. Thus, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
3
“14. In case the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, the High Court has no other option but to dismiss the appeal. However, in order to come to a conclusion that the appeal does not involve any substantial of law, the High Court has to record the reasons. Giving reasons for the conclusion is necessary as it helps the adversely affected party to understand
4
why his submissions were not accepted. The Court must display its conscious application of mind even while dismissing the appeal at the admission stage. In our view, the High Court cannot dismiss the second appeal in limine without assigning any reasons for its conclusion.”
Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge
siddhant
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hasmat Ali Versus Amina Bibi & OrsApplied¶28
Hasmat Ali Versus Amina Bibi & Ors reported in LiveLaw 2021 (SC) 689
Salikram And Anr S/o Kejuram Verma
Maneshwari And Ors W/o Mankram Verma
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
