Ravinder Singh Vs Smt. Sarla Shrivastav

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:2484

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

SA No. 177 of 2018

¶6

1 - Ravinder Singh S/o Shri Inder Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Gurunanak Nagar, Through Amrit Sales, Railway Station Road, Near Barkha Hotel, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.1)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Smt. Sarla Shrivastav W/o Late Shri V.K.Shrivastav, Aged About 68 Years Previous Address- E-5, Pankaj Vikram Apartment, Rejendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Present Address- House No. 245, Geetanjali Nagar, Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff)

¶10

2 - Ramesh Gangwani R/o Lakhani Shoes Centre, Ganesh Ram Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.2)

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Yogesh Pandey and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocates For Respondent : Mr. HC Shukla and Mr. Amrito Das, Advocates No.1.

¶13

Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2025.01.17 10:45:48 +0530

¶14

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board

¶15

2

¶16

15/01/2025

¶17

This is the Second Appeal filed by defendant No.1 under Section 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 5.2.2018 passed by the Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No.1-A/11, which, in turn, arises out of the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2010 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur in Civil Suit No.185-A/2008.

¶18

By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, whereby, the trial Court had dismissed the suit, and decreed the plaintiff’s suit and further, the appellant/defendant had been restrained permanently from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of Plot No.B-83 admeasuring area 2,400 sq. ft., part of Khasra No.708, situated in Gayatri Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Shankar Nagar, Raipur.

¶19

The appeal was admitted for hearing on 20.3.2023 on the following substantial questions of law :

¶20

Whether the learned first appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the trial Court without discussing all the issues framed by the trial Court?

¶21

Whether the learned first Appellate Court is justified by granting decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff

¶22

3

¶23

whereas the plaintiff has failed to establish that the suit land i.e. Plot No. B-83 which is part of Survey No.708?

¶24

The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. However, they need mention. The respondent/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit for permanent injunction against the defendants making averments that the suit property was purchased through the Society by the Sale-Deed-Ex.P/1. Thereafter, the appellant/defendant No.1 started digging the foundation of the suit property and thereafter, dumped the building material therein. Hence, the instant suit has been filed. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he asserted that he has purchased the land admeasuring 0.108 hectare, which is part of Khasra No.707/2 and 709/1 from Rajkumar and others vide the registered sale-deed dated 17.6.2004. He categorically averred that Rajkumar and four others purchased the said property through Sukhbati, daughter of Shobhit Sahu, vide the Sale-Deed-Ex.D/4 after releasing of the said land in a ceiling case. It has been further averred that the appellant/defendant No.1 also got the demarcation done through the Tehsildar, Raipur and he also started construction by digging his own land. It has also been averred that the subject property is not part of Khasra No.708, which has been purchased by the plaintiff and no document has been filed showing the title of the Society on such Khasra Number, therefore, the suit is not maintainable in its present

¶25

4

¶26

form.

¶27

Based upon the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as five issues and in order to prove the case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1, Ganesh Turkane as PW-2 and Chinmay Dawda, Vice President of the Gayatri Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., as PW-3. The appellant/defendant No.1 examined himself and Rajkumar Gangwani (PW-2). The plaintiff exhibited 12 documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/12 and the defendant exhibited four documents vide Ex.D/1 to D/4.

¶28

After evaluation of the evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit, against which, the plaintiff preferred the First Appeal and the same has been allowed by the impugned judgment and decree by observing that there is no specific denial that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has purchased the property – Plot No.B-83 through the Sale-deed (Ex.P/1) from Gayatri Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. It has also been observed that there is a dispute that a final layout has not been passed, but the said dispute is between the Society and the competent authority, therefore, taking into consideration the boundaries shown in the Sale-deed – Ex.P/1 and also considering the other evidence, the finding recorded by the trial Court has been turned down and the appeal was allowed and ultimately, a decree was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is a

¶30

5

¶31

categorical admission of the Investigator of the competent authority namely Ganesh Turkane (PW-2) that no final layout or super imposed map has been sanctioned and it has also been admitted by Chinmay Dawde (PW-3), Vice President of the Gayatri Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (Builder) that after purchasing the land from different owners and sanctioning a layout, a super imposed map ought to have been prepared. He further submits that in a civil suit, the burden always lies on the plaintiff to prove his case and he cannot take the benefit of the weakness of the other side. He submits that the plaintiff has not established that the subject land is part of Khasra No.708 and the land belongs to the Gayatri Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that there is a serious dispute about the identity of the land, therefore, the Appellate Court wrongly reversed the well reasoned findings recorded by the trial Court. Hence, learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal and set-aside the impugned judgment and decree.

¶32

On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff would support the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court and would submit that the law relating to the pleading is well established. A general or evasive denial is not treated as sufÏcient. Proviso to Order 8 Rule 5 of the CPC provides that even the admitted facts may not be treated to be

¶33

6

¶34

admitted, still in its discretion the Court may require those facts to be proved. For the above submission, learned counsel would place reliance on the matter of Thangam and another Vs. Navamani Ammal, reported in (2024) 4 SCC 247 and refer to para 28, which reads thus :

¶35

The issue regarding specific admission and denial of the pleadings was considered by this Court in Badat and Co. Vs. East India Trading Co. While referring to Order 8 Rules 3 to 5 CPC it was opined that the aforesaid Rules formed an integrated Code dealing with the manner in which the pleadings are to be dealt with. Relevant parts of para 11 thereof are extracted below: ( Badat case , AIR pp.544-45)

¶36

“11. Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes, among others, that the plaintiff shall give in the plaint the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose, and the facts showing that the court has jurisdiction. The object is to enable the defendant to ascertain from the plaint the necessary facts so that he may admit or deny them. Order 8 provides for the filing of a written-statement, the particulars to be contained therein and the manner of doing so;….These three rules form an integrated code dealing with the manner in which allegations of fact in the plaint should be traversed and the legal consequences flowing from its noncompliance. The written statement must deal specifically with each allegation of fact in the plaint and when a defendant denies any such fact, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. If his denial of a fact is not specific but evasive, the said fact shall be

¶37

7

¶38

taken to be admitted. In such an event, the admission itself being proof, no other proof is necessary.”

¶39

Learned counsel for the plaintiff would further submit that in the present matter, the defendant has not specifically denied about the purchase of the subject property – Plot No.B-83 admeasuring 2400 sq. ft., of Khasra No.708 from Gayatri Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. They would submit that Chinmay Dawde (PW-3), Vice President of the concerned Society, has categorically deposed that the said Society has sold the part of Khasra No.708, after cutting a plot . They would submit that the Appellate Court has rightly corrected the findings recorded by the trial Court, which is perverse to the record. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree is well reasoned, which does not call for any interference and thus, pray to dismiss this appeal.

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶41

Admittedly, respondent No.1/plaintiff has purchased the subject property-Plot-B/83 admeasuring 2400 sq. ft., which has been shown in the sale-deed as part of Khasra No.708. It is explicit that Chinmay Dhawda (PW-3), who is the Vice President of the concerned Society, categorically admitted and denied the suggestion in the cross-examination that the subject plot is not of Khasra No.708, which goes to show that the defendant No.1/appellant has purchased the property with regard to

¶42

8

¶43

different Khasra Numbers i.e. 707/2 and 709/1 admeasuring area 0.108 hectare.

¶44

Perusal of the Sale-deed-Ex.D/4 would show that the same was executed by Sukhbati in favour of Rajkumar Gangwani, Anil Gangwani, Santosh Gangwani, and Rizwan Ahmed on 24.11.2000, which was registered on 18.10.2000. In the said sale-deed, the boundaries have not been clearly shown, however, it has been mentioned that the land in north, south, east and west belongs to others and the name of the person whose land is adjoining to the subject land has not been mentioned. The said purchaser further sold the land in favour of appellant/defendant No.1 Ravinder Singh vide Ex.D/1 through the registered sale-deed executed on 2.6.2004. In the said sale-deed, it has been mentioned that in the north, land of K.S. Chaggar, in the south, land of Rajesh Krishnani, in the east, land of V.N. Soni and in the west, there is a road situated. Though the defendant has specifically pleaded in his written statement that he has started construction over his own plot purchased through the aforesaid Sale-deed and in para 11, it has been categorically pleaded by him that the demarcation has already been done but during the trial, no such demarcation report has been filed by the defendant. Hence, non-filing of such material document to prove the fact during trial and pleading the same in his written statement, has drawn adverse inference against him.

¶45

9

¶46

The Appellate Court, on the basis of the boundaries, which have been mentioned in the Sale-deed-Ex.P/1, correctly relied on the fact that there are specific boundaries of the plots sold by the Gayatri Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. to different purchasers. It has been mentioned therein that in the north of the subject plot, Plot No.82, in the south, Plot No.84, in the west, a road and in the east direction, Plot No.70 are situated and after several plots, there is a high tension electric line. In my view, when the boundaries are explicit, the Appellate Court, by placing reliance on the matter of Subba Rao and others Vs. Amizunnisa Begum and others, AIR 1984 NOC 300 (A.P.) , has rightly observed that the property described by boundaries can be identified. Moreover, by the Sale-deed, it has been established that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff. Hence, the trial Court has recorded a wrong finding only on the ground that no final layout has been filed, which, in fact, has no impact on the nature of the subject dispute, however the same has been duly corrected by the Appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree. In view of above, the Appellate Court has rightly granted decree in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff with regard to the land purchased by her i.e. Plot No.B-83 admeasuring 2400 sq. of Khasra No.708.

¶47

As a consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the substantial questions of law framed by this Court are answered in negative.

¶48

10

¶49

For the foregoing, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and it is hereby afÏrmed .

¶50

Resultantly, the Appeal is found to be totally devoid of any merit. It fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s).

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶53

Judge

¶54

Shyna

Ravinder Singh v. Smt. Sarla Shrivastav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Singh v. Smt. Sarla Shrivastav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishore Masih Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Kumar Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sumit Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bharosa (Died) Throug Legal Heir Vs Smt.Asha Sharma

Smt. Rekha Bai Sadhwani and Ors. Vs Ramarao Sendre

Vinay Kumar Kaiwart Vs State of Chhattisgarh