Dismissed¶45

Sanjay v. Jyoti @ Bhima

Chhattisgarh HC16 Sept 2024SA/301/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second Appeal dismissed at admission stage; will-deed dated 24.08.2005 held suspicious/null and void; attesting witness Firtu failed to support defendant No. 1; execution just before executant's death unexplained; Section 15 Hindu Succession Act - legal heirs of husband entitled to property of issue-less female owner; no substantial question of law; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey; Civil Appeal No. 17-A of 2015; Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa.

What did the court decide?

The attesting witness of the will-deed, Firtu (DW2), failed to support the case of defendant No. 1. ¶42

Sanjay Vs Jyoti @ Bhima — Succession and Inheritance | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the will-deed dated 24.08.2005 purportedly executed by Budhyarin Bai in favour of defendant No. 1 is valid or suspicious/null and void. +2 more

¶42

Court's answer

The attesting witness of the will-deed, Firtu (DW2), failed to support the case of defendant No. 1.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

Defendant No. 1/appellant failed to prove the circumstances as to why the will-deed was executed just before the death of Budhyarin Bai when she was hospitalized.

¶43

Key takeaways

In the opinion of this Court, the learned Courts below recorded a well-reasoned finding with regard to the execution of the will-deed.ratio¶43
According to Section 15, the legal heirs of the husband would be entitled to get right over the property of Budhyarin Bai.ratio¶44
The finding of the courts below with regard to the plaintiffs' right over the suit property is, in this Court's opinion, neither perverse nor unreasonable.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal No. 301 of 2016, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (heard on admission; decided 7.09.2024 by Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey). Defendant No. 1 (Sanjay) challenged the judgment and decree of the Ist Additional District Judge, Sakti (Civil Appeal No. 17-A of 2015, dated 27.02.2016), whereby his first appeal was dismissed and the trial court's decree affirmed. The trial court had decreed the claim of the plaintiffs (children of Ram Prasad and Savitri Bai) declaring them owners of survey Nos. 1791/2, 2094, 2095/3 (1.05 acres, Village Kashigarh) purchased by Budhyarin Bai (Ram Prasad's first wife, who died issue-less on 25.08.2005), and declaring the will-deed dated 24.08.2005 purportedly executed by her in favour of defendant No. 1 null and void. Held: the attesting witness Firtu (DW2) failed to support defendant No. 1's case; the appellant failed to prove the circumstances in which the will-deed was executed just before the executant's death while she was hospitalized; the courts below recorded well-reasoned findings which are neither perverse nor unreasonable; and, according to Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, the legal heirs of the husband would be entitled to get right over the property of Budhyarin Bai. No substantial question of law was found to be involved; the Second Appeal was dismissed.

2024:CGHC:36143

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

SA No. 301 of 2016

¶6

Sanjay S/o Nawadha Prasad, Aged About 30 Years Occupation Agriculturist, Village Kashigarh Achanakpur Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.........Defendant No. 1

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

Jyoti @ Bhima D/o Ramprasad, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Parsadeah, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶10

Ku. Durga, D/o Ramprasad, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Parsadeah, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶11

Gouri, D/o Ramprasad, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Parsadeah, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶12

Prasad Kumari, D/o Ramprasad, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Parsadeah, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶13

Chhatram, S/o Ramprasad, Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Parsadeah, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh........Plaintiffs

¶14

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

(A) Sonadhin, W/o Puniram, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Parsadeah, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa, Presently R/o Dakra Collieries, Mohan Nagar, Post Dakra District Ranchi Jharkhand

¶16

7.(B) - Manoj, S/o Puniram, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Parsadeah, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa, Presently R/o Dakra Collieries, Mohan Nagar, Post Dakra District Ranchi Jharkhand

¶17

7.(C) - Uttam, S/o Puniram, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Parsadeah, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa, Presently R/o Dakra Collieries, Mohan Nagar, Post Dakra District Ranchi Jharkhand

¶18

7.(D) - Janak, S/o Puniram, Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Parsadeah, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa, Presently R/o Dakra Collieries, Mohan Nagar, Post Dakra District Ranchi Jharkhand

¶19

7.(E) - Golu, S/o Puniram, Aged About 13 Years Minor, Through Mother Sonadhim, W/o Puniram, Through Reader Civil Court, Advocate, R/o

¶20

¶21

Village Parsadeah, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa, Presently R/o Dakra Collieries, Mohan Nagar, Post Dakra District Ranchi Jharkhand

¶22

7.(F) - Manju, D/o Puniram, Aged About 6 Years Minor, Through Mother Sonadhim, W/o Puniram, Through Reader Civil Court, Advocate, R/o Village Parsadeah, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa, Presently R/o Dakra Collieries, Mohan Nagar, Post Dakra District Ranchi Jharkhand........Lrs Of Defendant No. 3

¶23

... Respondents

¶24

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶25

For Appellant : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer

¶26

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶27

1 7.09.2024

¶28

Heard on admission.

¶29

Defendant No. 1/appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned I^st Additional District Judge, Sakti, District JanjgirChampa, C.G. in Civil Appeal No. 17-A of 2015 dated 27.02.2016, whereby, the appeal preferred by defendant No. 1/appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was affirmed.

¶30

The plaintiffs, who are issues from Ram Prasad and Savitri filed a Civil Suit claiming therein declaration of title and possession over the suit property and further declaration that the will-deed dated 24.08.2005 is null and void. The suit property bearing survey Nos. 1791/2, 2094, 2095/3 admeasuring 1.05 acres situated at Village Kashigarh, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa were purchased by the first wife of Ram Prasad, namely, Budhyarin Bai through a registered sale-deed. She died on 25.08.2005, and there were no issues between Ram Prasad and Budhyarin Bai, therefore, Ram Prasad married another lady, namely, Savitri Bai and from that marriage, there are six children who are the

¶31

¶32

plaintiffs. After the death of Budhyarin Bai, the plaintiffs claimed the right over the property, but defendant No. 1 claimed his right over the suit property on the basis of a will deed dated 24.08.2005 which was executed by Budhyarin Bai in favour of Sanjay Kumar. Vishambhar was the real brother of Budhyarin Bai, Nawadha Prasad was the son of Vishambhar and defendant No. 1/ Sanjay Kumar is the son of Nawdha Prasad.

¶33

The defendants filed a written statement and denied the plaint averments. Learned trial Court framed issues and held that the plaintiffs are the owner of the suit property, the will-deed executed on 24.08.2005 is null and void, and the plaintiffs are entitled to get decree of possession. Thus, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed. Defendant No. 1/appellant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed affirming the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.

¶34

Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant No. 1, submitted that the suit property was self-acquired property of Budhyarin Bai and she had executed a will-deed in favour of the appellant/defendant No. 1 on 24.08.2005. He further submitted that the will-deed was proved by examining an attesting witness, namely, Firtu. He also submitted that as the property was the self-acquired property of Budhyarin Bai, therefore, the plaintiffs have no right over it, and if the reasons/findings given by the learned Court below are accepted, the property would devolve according to Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act to the near relatives of Budhyarin Bai, and therefore, the learned Courts below arrived at erroneous conclusion that the plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the property. It is further contended that the judgments passed by the learned Courts below are contrary to the facts and evidence available on record; therefore, a substantial question of law arises in the

¶35

¶36

present Second Appeal.

¶37

On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State would oppose and support the judgments passed by the learned Courts below.

¶38

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

¶39

Admittedly, the suit property was purchased by Budhyarin Bai through a registered sale deed. She died issue-less, as there was no issue; her husband, namely, Ram Prasad married Savitri Bai, and the plaintiffs are the issues from their wedlock. After the death of Budhyarin Bai, the dispute arose. The plaintiffs claimed their right as per succession, whereas defendant No. 1/appellant claimed right on the basis of a will-deed dated 24.08.2005.

¶40

A perusal of Ex. P/6 issued by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat would show that there were blue marks on both thumbs of the deceased Budhyarin Bai, and such marks were noticed by the Sarpanch himself. Firtu/DW2, who was the attesting witness of the will-deed on the affidavit stated that a thumb impression was put by Budhyarin Bai on the will-deed, and thereafter, he and another witness, namely, Chhotelal, put their signatures. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he does not know where the suit property is; he does not know the wives of Ram Prasad; he does not know when Ram Prasad and Budhyarin Bai were married; he does not know whether the suit property is situated at Kashinagar or not. He further stated that the will deed was executed on 24.8.2005 and Budhayarin Bai died on 25.8.2005. He also admitted his relation with the beneficiary, Sanjay Kumar.

¶41

¶42

The learned Courts below found the will-deed suspicious on the ground that on 25.08.2005 Budhyarin Bai died, whereas, the will-deed was executed on 24.05.2005. The witness, namely, Firtu failed to support the case of defendant No. 1.

¶43

10. Defendant No. 1/appellant failed to prove the circumstances as to why the will-deed was executed just before the death of Budhyarin Bai when she was hospitalized. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Courts below recorded a well-reasoned finding with regard to the execution of will-deed.

¶44

11. With regard to the right of the plaintiffs over the suit property, according to Section 15, the legal heirs of the husband would be entitled to get right over the property of Budhyarin Bai. This finding according to this Court is neither perverse nor unreasonable.

¶45

12. Taking into consideration the above-stated discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Accordingly, the instant Second Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶48

$iddhant

Sanjay v. Jyoti @ Bhima

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay v. Jyoti @ Bhima

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

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

Kosiko and Anr. Vs Moti Ram and Ors.