High Court dismissed the second appeal against a judgment declining declaration of title and permanent injunction, holding no substantial question of law arose as it was a finding on admissibility of evidence regarding land possession and boundaries.
The second appeal was dismissed with no relief granted to the appellants.
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. 73 of 2018
1. (Deleted) Rajendra Prasad Dubey,(Died) Through Lrs As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 20-02-2023
1.1 - (A) Vijay Dubey S/o Late Rajendra Prasad Dubey Aged About 46 Years R/o Kabir Chowk, Raigarh Ward No. 35, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
1.2 - (B) Vinay Kumar Dubey S/o Late Rajendra Prasad Dubey Aged About 40 Years R/o B1, Gondwara, Ashok Vihar, Gondwara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
1.3 - (C) Sumit Kumar Dubey S/o Late Rajendra Prasad Dubey Aged About 37 Years R/o Kabir Chowk, Jhopdipara, Raigarh Ward No. 35, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
1.4 - (D) Amit Dubey S/o Late Rajendra Prasad Dubey Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 124, Kabir Chowk, Sarangarh Road, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
2. Santosh Dubey S/o S/o Kailash Dubey Aged About 42 Years R/o Chhatumuda Bypass Road, Sangitrai, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ..........................Jeevatbandhan Dubey (Since Died)., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellants
Versus
1. Alok Kumar S/o S/o Suresh Kumar Goyal R/o Orissa Road, Dedepapara, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3. Chandramani Patel S/o S/o Trilochan Patel Aged About 60 Years R/o Sangitrai, Post Chhatamuda, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
4. Govindram Patel S/o S/o Trilochan Patel Aged About 50 Years R/o Sangitrai, Post Chhatamuda, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
5. Hemlal Patel S/o S/o Gopal Singh Aged About 62 Years R/o Sangitrai, Post Chhatamuda, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)
| For Appellants | : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate |
|---|---|
| For State/Respondent No. 2 | : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, P.L. |
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board
06.12.2023
2
2) The facts of the present case are that the plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents on the ground that the land in question bearing survey No. 373, ad-measuring 0.024 hectares was purchased by Jeevatbandhan through a registered saledeed dated 18.02.1991 for consideration of Rs. 11,400/- from Nandlal and Jaglal and possession was also handed over. Defendant No. 1 purchased survey No. 370/3 ad-measuring 0.048 hectares and moved an application for correction of revenue records. The plaintiffs raised an objection thereafter, the Tahsildar directed the Revenue Inspector to conduct an enquiry and submit the report, thereafter, a Civil Suit was filed seeking the aforesaid relief. Defendant No. 1 filed the written statement and denied the plaint averments. The defendants specifically disputed the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The possession of adjacent grassland was also handed over to the plaintiffs and they were in possession of that land which is situated on the north side of the property. It was alleged that they had purchased the land bearing survey No. 370/3, area 0.048 hectares through a registered sale-deed dated 02.06.1995 from Chandramani, Govind Ram and Hemlal. Defendants No. 3 to 5 filed their joint written statement and stated that no grassland is available on the north side of survey No. 373. It is specifically stated that the grassland is situated in survey No. 372. The learned trial Court after framing the issues recorded the evidence of the parties, and vide judgment and decree dated 13.05.2016 dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove that towards the north side of the suit property, grassland was available; the plaintiff failed to prove that
3
defendant No. 1 got the aforesaid map in collusion with the Patwari, further, the learned trial Court also not found proved the right of the plaintiff over the property on the basis of adverse possession and thus, dismissed the suit. An appeal was preferred and in the appeal, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court have been affirmed.
4
there is no grassland adjacent to survey No. 373 and the plaintiffs could not prove this fact by adducing clinching evidence, the finding recorded by the learned Courts below cannot be held erroneous.
Ors. reported in LL 2021 SC 689 in para 14 held as under:-
“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 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
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal involves any substantial question of law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hasmat Ali Versus Amina Bibi & Ors.Referred¶36
Hasmat Ali Versus Amina Bibi & Ors. reported in LL 2021 SC 689
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vijay Dubey
Vinay Kumar Dubey
Sumit Kumar Dubey
Amit Dubey
Alok Kumar
State Of Chhattisgarh
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
