Dismissed

Kosiko and Anr. v. Moti Ram and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC16 Sept 2024SA/181/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal challenges the dismissal of a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding land. The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the land was previously recorded under their names prior to Bandobast.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed; the impugned judgment and decree are affirmed.

Kosiko and Anr. Vs Moti Ram and Ors. — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Digitally signed by

¶3

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2024:CGHC:36272 Date: 2024.09.19 10:51:39 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

SA No. 181 of 2013

¶7

1– Kosiko, S/o Bhagirathi Rawat, Aged About 70 Years, caste- Rawat, 2- Fatte Ram, S/o Nilambar Rawat, Aged About 45 Years, Caste Rawat,

¶8

Both are R/o Jharabahal, Agriculture Vill. Dohel, Revenue Circle: Devbhog, P.S. Deobhog, Tah. Deobhog, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants/Plaintiffs

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Moti Ram, S/o Kripa Ram, Aged About 55 Years, Caste- Rawat,

¶11

2 – Kedarnath, S/o Motiram, Aged About 35 Years, Caste- Rawat,

¶12

Both are R/o Jharabahal, Agriculture Vill. Dohel, Revenue Circle: Devbhog, P.S. Deobhog, Tah. Deobhog, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

3 - State of Chhttisgarh, through: Collector, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

.. . Respondents/Defendants

¶15

For Appellants : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Mohammad Afroz Akhtar, Advocate For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶17

17.09.2024

¶18

1. Vide order dated 13.11.2013, this second appeal was admitted for hearing and the following substantial question of law was framed:-

¶19

“ Whether both the courts below have committed an error of law in rejecting the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs on the ground that the suit is not tenable before the civil Court? ”

¶20

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated

¶21

-2-

¶22

12.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband in civil appeal No.07A/2011 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Deobhog, District Raipur in civil suit No. 02-/2010.

¶23

1. The brief facts of the present case are as under:-

¶24

A. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing survey No. 347, ad-measuring 0.31 hectares, situated at village- Dohel, Patwari Halka No. 5, Revenue Circle – Deobhog, District Raipur.

¶25

B. It is pleaded that survey Nos. 333, 335, 345, ad-measuring 0.54, 0.72, & 0.08 hectares, were recorded in their names prior to Bandobast.

¶26

C. It is further pleaded that after Bandobast, there was a shortcoming of 0.31 hectares in the revenue records pertaining to the plaintiffs and the same was added to the revenue records of the defendants.

¶27

D. It is also pleaded that the new survey number of survey number 204/5 is 347 ad-measuring 0.31 hectares and it is suit land which has been recorded in the names of the defendants.

¶28

E. It has been pleaded that the suit land is in possession of defendants No.1 & 2.

¶29

F. The defendants filed their written statement and pleaded that survey No. 347 ad-measuring 0.31 hectares was never recorded in the names of the plaintiffs or their forefathers and it remained in exclusive possession of defendants No.1 & 2.

¶30

G. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 & 2 belong to different families and there is no question of partition between them.

¶31

H. The learned trial Court framed issues and held that the plaintiffs are not the owner of survey No. 347 admeasuring 0.31 hectares, and it was never numbered as survey No. 205 or 206/2 in the revenue records prior to the Bandobast and the plaintiffs are not entitled to the decree of permanent injunction.

¶32

-3-

¶33

I. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned first appellate Court, but the same was also dismissed.

¶34

1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the plaintiffs have proved the fact that survey No. 347 was earlier recorded as survey No. 205, 206/2 in the revenue records prior to Bandobast. He would further submit that the plaintiffs by adducing oral and documentary evidence have proved this fact, but the learned courts below committed an error of law in dismissing the suit. He would also submit that defendants No.1 and 2 have no right over the survey No. 347. He would pray that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below may be set aside and the suit may be decreed.

¶35

1. On the other hand, Mr. Akhtar, would oppose and submit that the plaintiffs failed to prove that survey No. 347 ad-measuring 0.31 hectares was ever recorded as survey Nos. 205 or 206/2 in the revenue records. He would further submit that defendants No.1 & 2 are the owners of survey No. 347 measuring 0.31 hectares. He would also submit that the plaintiffs have produced Ex.P/2, Ex.P/3 & Ex.P/11 and those documents clearly establish that survey No. 347 was not a part of the old survey Nos. 205, or 206/2. He would thus submit that there is a concurrent finding recorded by the learned courts below, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

1. Learned State counsel would support the impugned judgments and decree passed by the learned courts below.

¶37

1. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶38

1. In the present case, the learned Courts below dismissed the civil suit filed by the plaintiffs only on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to establish the fact that survey No.347, ad-measuring 0.31 hectares was ever recorded as survey Nos. 205 or 206/2 in the revenue records prior to Bandobast. The plaintiffs adduced

¶39

-4-

¶40

the revenue documents (Ex.P/1, P/2, P/3 & P/11). In Ex.P-1 & P/2, survey No. 347 is not mentioned.

¶41

1. A perusal of Ex.P/11 would show that new survey No. 204/5 is survey No. 347. Bhoo-Adhikaar/Hrin Pustika was produced by the defendant as Ex.D/1 and survey No.204/5 was part and parcel of this document.

¶42

1. Earlier, an order was also passed by the SDO(R) against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants No.1 & 2 with regard to survey No. 347; even through oral evidence, the plaintiffs failed to prove the fact that survey No. 347 was part of survey Nos. 205 or 206/2; thus, the Courts below rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

¶43

1. The substantial question of law framed is answered in negative against the plaintiffs and consequently, this second appeal is hereby dismissed .

¶44

1. A decree be drawn accordingly. No order as to cost.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶47

Nadim

Kosiko and Anr. v. Moti Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kosiko and Anr. v. Moti Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Raj Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Smt.soniya Bai And Anr. Vs Janak Ram And Ors.

Laxmichand Lodhi and Another Vs Gangadhar and Others

Rukhsana Kazi Vs the Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation

Smt. Shanti Devi Shrivastava Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Vs Jyoti @ Bhima