Dismissed

Parmanand v. Kamla Bai

Chhattisgarh HC11 Nov 2024WP227/160/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an interim order under Section 151 CPC granting possession protection to a defendant in a partition suit involving ancestral property, arguing the revenue order was void due to lack of hearing. The Court found no substantial question warranting interference under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition failed and was dismissed with instructions to the trial court to decide the main suit expeditiously.

Parmanand Vs Kamla Bai — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:44072

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 160 of 2024

¶6

1 -Parmanand S/o Late Raghuvar Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Uparwah, Tahsil Ghumka, Distt. Rajnandgaon	And Post (C.G.)
2 -Parvati D/o Late Raghuvar Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Vill. Uparwah, Tahsil Ghumka, Distt. Rajnandgaon	And Post (C.G.)
3 -Geeta Bai D/o Late Raghuvar Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Vill.	And Post
Uparwah, Tahsil Ghumka, Distt. Rajnandgaon	(C.G.)
4 -Basanti Bai D/o Late Raghuvar Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Vill. Uparwah, Tahsil Ghumka, Distt. Rajnandgaon	And Post (C.G.)

¶7

5 - Smt. Kaina Bai Wd/o Late Raghuvar Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Vill. And Post Uparwah, Tahsil Ghumka, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioners

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Kamla Bai D/o Shri Laxmichand Sahu Aged About 54 Years W/o Shri Dev Singh Sahu, R/o Village Ghumka, Near Thakurdev Chowk, Post Ghumka, Tah. And Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶11

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Distt. Rajnandgoan (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Petitioners :	Shri Arun Shukla, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1:	Shri Pranav Tiwari, Advocate.
For Respondent/State:	Shri SK Puriya, Panel Lawyer.

¶14

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KRISHNA KUMAR KUMAR BARVE BARVE Date: 2024.11.13 10:39:28 +0530

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

Order On Board

2 / 3

12/11/2024 :

This Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 27.1.2024 whereby the application preferred by respondent No.1/defendant under Section 151 of the CPC was allowed and interim relief was also granted in favour of defendant No.1 against the petitioners/plaintiffs not to obstruct the land which was in possession of defendant No.1.

¶20

Facts of the case are that petitioners No.1 to 4 are the real brothers and sisters whereas the petitioner No.5 is their mother and respondent No.1 is the daughter of late Neera Bai (real sister of Raghuvar Sahu). The petitioners/plaintiffs had filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction and also to declare the order dated 31^st December, 2021 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, Ghumka in revenue case as null and void, making an averment, inter alia, that in the life time of late Raghuvar Sahu, his sisters Sonkunwar, Neerabai and Nirasha Bai had already relinquished their rights on the ancestral property. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs had also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC which was allowed in favour of the plaintiffs directing the respondent No.1/defendant not to alienate the subject property during the pendency of the suit. Thereafter the defendant No.1 has also filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC alleging that after passing of the said order, the petitioners/plaintiffs are trying to dispossess the defendant No.1 from the property which was in her possession and received by way of legal partition by the revenue Court.

¶21

3 / 3

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Naib Tehsildar has passed the partition order without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/plaintiffs. Sisters of late Raghuvar Sahu have already relinquished their rights.

¶23

When a query has been put as to in what manner they have relinquished their rights, learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs is unable to explain the same.

¶24

On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would support the impugned order.

¶25

Considering the entire fact situation of the case, as the subject land is the ancestral land and in revenue proceeding, some land has been allotted in favour of defendant No.1, the petitioners/plaintiffs have not filed any document as to how the right of mother of defendant No.1 was extinguished by way of relinquishment and further considering that the impugned order has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 151 of the CPC, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out warranting interference by invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.

¶26

In the result, the Writ Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, this Court hopes and trust that the trial Court shall decide the main civil suit, in an expeditious manner, without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.

¶27

Sd/(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶28

Barve

Parmanand v. Kamla Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmanand v. Kamla Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar Agrawal Vs Krishna Kumar Agarawal

Satish Vs Smt. Saini Bai

M/S Mihir Minerals, Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization

Basant Kumar Tiwari Vs Taiyyab Khokhar

Ksk Mahanadi Power Company Limited Vs Bijulmati Gond

Aditya Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh