Dismissed¶70

Geeta Bai v. Nutan Lal

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jan 2025SA/23/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari; 09/01/2025; SA No.23/2018 and SA No.24/2018 dismissed in limine; Section 100 CPC substantial question of law; encroachment; boundary/demarcation dispute; sale deed Ex.P/1 boundaries versus khasra number; Government Abadi land; Batankan; adverse possession claim; preponderance of probability; M Siddiq (2020) 1 SCC 1 relied on; Sopanrao (2019) 7 SCC 76, Ramlal (MP HC SA 744/1998), Gram Panchavat Gorakhpur (1972 SCC OnLine MP 39) distinguished; Khasra No.558/66, Gariyaband; possession 47.23 sq m; damages Rs.5,550/- with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; both appeals dismissed in limine and the first appellate Court's judgments and decrees upheld. ¶70

Geeta Bai Vs Nutan Lal — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; both appeals dismissed in limine and the first appellate Court's judgments and decrees upheld.

¶70

Issue for consideration

Whether the second appeals involve a substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 CPC so as to be admitted for final hearing. +1 more

¶43

Court's answer

Both second appeals involve no question of law, much less any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 CPC, and therefore have no merit.

¶69

Ratio / Principle

Both appeals stand dismissed in limine, upholding the judgments and decrees passed by the first appellate Court.

¶70

Key takeaways

This Court affirms the first appellate Court's finding that the appellants Geetabai and Janakram are encroachers on the land of the plaintiffs.ratio¶66
Comparison of the map annexed with the plaint with the sale deed, on the basis of preponderance of probability, establishes that the appellants Geeta Bai and Janakram encroached upon the plaintiffs' property.ratio¶60
Where the abadi land has several houses built up and there is no Batankan in the map making demarcation very difficult, greater weightage is to be given to the sale deed in which boundaries have been mentioned.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeals Nos. 23 and 24 of 2018 (High Court of Chhattisgarh, Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, 09.01.2025) by defendants Geeta Bai and Janakram against the Additional District Judge, Gariyaband's judgment and decree dated 28.11.2017 in Civil Appeals Nos. 2A/2012 and 1A/2012, which had reversed the trial Court's dismissal and decreed the plaintiffs' suits for possession and damages regarding Khasra No.558/66, Gariyaband. Held: the appeals involved no question of law, much less a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC, and were dismissed in limine. The Court affirmed the finding, reached by comparing the plaint map with the 1967 sale deed (Ex.P/1) reciting boundaries, that the appellants encroached on the plaintiffs' land; where abadi land contains several houses and no Batankan, rendering demarcation very difficult, the boundary-reciting sale deed carries more weightage. Precedents urged by the appellants (including Sopanrao on Article 65, Limitation Act 1963) were held distinguishable on facts. The decrees for handover of 47.23 square meter and Rs.5,550/- damages with 6% interest were upheld.

2025:CGHC:1509

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

Digitally signed by AVINASH AVINASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.10 16:21:58 +0530

¶6

SA No. 23 of 2018

¶7

• Geeta Bai W/o Late Neelkanth Nishad, Aged About 40 Years R/o Hetel, Business, Main Road Chhura, Tahsil Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ............. .Defendant No.1.

¶8

---Appellant.

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Nutan Lal S/o Late Chhabilal, Aged About 60 Years R/o Public Works Department Pali, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Ambedkar Chowk, Tahsil Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ...........……... Plaintiff No.2.

¶11

2 - Mahesh Kumar S/o Late Chhabilal, Aged About 44 Years R/o Ambedkar Chowk, Tahsil Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ............. Plaintiff No.3.

¶12

3 - Smt. Pawna Bai W/o Jeevrakhan Gadhmale, Aged About 53 Years R/o Aspatal Ward, Kali Badi Chowk, Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh .............. Plaintiff No.4.

¶13

¶14

4 - Smt. Madhubala W/o Bhimrao Gharde, Aged About 38 Years R/o Mohalla Chikhli, Tahsil Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh Plaintiff No.5.

¶15

5 - Anil Kumar S/o Late Uttam Lal Lonhare, Aged About 29 Years R/o Clubpara, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Defendant No.2.

¶16

6 - Praveen Kumar S/o Late Uttam Lal Lonhare, Aged About 20 Years R/o Clubpara, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Defendant No.3.

¶17

7 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh Defendant No.4.

¶18

--- Respondent(s)

¶19

SA No. 24 of 2018

¶20

Janakram S/o Roop Singh, Aged About 33 Years R/o In Front Of Cooperative Bank, Main Road, Chhura, Tahsil Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ............. .Defendant No.1.

--- Appellant.

Versus

2 - Mahesh Kumar S/o Late Chhabilal, Aged About 44 Years R/o Ambedkar Chowk, Tahsil Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ............ Plaintiff No.3.

¶25

¶26

3 - Smt. Pawna Bai W/o Jeevrakhan Gadhmale, Aged About 53 Years R/o Aspatal Ward, Kali Badi Chowk, Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Plaintiff No.4 .

¶27

4 - Smt. Madhubala W/o Bhimrao Gharde, Aged About 38 Years R/o Mohalla Chikhli, Tahsil Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh .............. Plaintiff No.5.

¶28

5 - Anil Kumar S/o Late Uttam Lal Lonhare, Aged About 29 Years R/o Clubpara, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh .............. Defendant No.2 .

¶29

6 - Praveen Kumar S/o Late Uttam Lal Lonhare, Aged About 20 Years R/o Clubpara, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh .............. Defendant No.3.

¶30

7 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ............. Defendant No.4.

¶31

--- Respondent(s)

¶32

For Appellants : Shri Manoj Paranjpe with Shri Sandeep Patel, Advocates.

¶33

For State : Shri Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate.

¶34

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶35

Judgment on Board

¶36

09/01/2025

¶37

Since the dispute involved in both appeals is the one and the same, they are being decided by this common judgment.

¶38

For the purposes of disposal, the facts pleaded in Second Appeal

¶39

¶40

No.23 of 2018 are being referred.

¶41

Second Appeal No.23 of 2018 has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh in Civil Appeal No.2A/2012 reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2011 passed by Civil Judge Class 1, Gariyaband in Civil Suit No.118A/2002 whereby, suit preferred by respondents/plaintiffs for possession and damages was dismissed. Counter suit filed by Respondent Nos.5 and 6/Defendant Nos.2 and 3 was also dismissed. While allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, it was directed that appellant/Defendant No.1 must hand over the possession in favour of plaintiffs as he has encroached plaintiffs’ land admeasuring area 47.23 square meter within two months and shall also pay damages to the tune of Rs.5,550/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization.

¶42

The Second Appeal No.24 of 2018 has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Gariyaband C.G. in Civil Appeal No.1A/2012 reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2011 passed by Civil Judge Class 1, Gariyaband C.G. in Civil Suit No.119A/2002.

¶43

So the short question for consideration in this appeal is whether this second appeal involves substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 CPC and whether such appeal should be admitted for final hearing?

¶44

Necessary facts of the case are that plaintiffs/respondents filed a

¶45

¶46

civil suit for possession and damages in respect of land bearing Khasra No.558/66 by making averment, inter alia, that the subject property was purchased through sale deed dated 05.05.1967 through Rambhabai and also a Patta(Ex.P/13) has been conferred to them by the State in respect of Khasra No.558/66, area admeasuring 2583 square feet. Appellant/Defendant No.1 has encroached upon some portion of the land in the month of January, 1994 which has been shown in the map annexed with the plaint.

¶47

The present appellant in her written statement denied the averments and stated that she is in possession of land admeasuring area 24x20 total 480 square feet in Khasra No.558/66 which is a Government Abadi land, on which she is running hotel business for the last 30 years and over the said land, plaintiffs have no title or possession. It has been further averred that the plaintiffs in collusive manner, obtained illegal Patta and the present appellant was not aware about the same. It has been further averred that as the appellant is in continuous possession, she has perfected her title on the basis of adverse possession.

¶48

The learned trial Court based on the pleadings of the parties framed as many as 10 issues and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs as also the cross suit filed by the Respondent Nos.5 and 6, against which, respondents/plaintiffs preferred first appeal which was allowed in their favour. Hence, this Second appeal has

¶49

¶50

been preferred.

¶51

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the trial Court has recorded finding on the basis of material available on record and the learned first appellate Court without assigning sufficient reasons reversed the same, though the trial Court had assigned valid and cogent reasons. He would submit that the suit itself is barred by limitation as the same has not been filed within a period of 12 years though the same is based on title. He would submit that there is serious dispute as regards identity of the land as to whether it is private land or Government land. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Sopanrao and Another v. Syed Mehmood and Others {(2019) 7 SCC 76} , wherein it has been observed that under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, limitation in respect of the suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title, is 12 years.

¶52

Further, learned counsel for the appellants referred to the judgment in the matter of Ramlal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Through Collector and Others passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No.744 of 1998 wherein it has been held that when there is dispute about the boundary, unless a Commissioner has been appointed and proper demarcation has been carried out, the matter could not be decided.

¶53

Learned counsel for the appellants further referred to judgment in the matter of Gram Panchavat Gorakhpur v. Khushali Dindaval

¶54

¶55

Sahu {1972 SCC OnLine MP 39} wherein it has been held that Abadi area belongs to the State Government, and the State Government is the only authority to evict any trespasser. He would submit that certain notices have also been issued by revenue authorities against the appellant.

¶56

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶57

On perusal of record, it is explicit that way back on 05.05.1967 (Ex.P/1) Chabilal through whom the plaintiffs have claimed their title, has purchased property from Rambhabai, wife of Dayalu Mahar. Earlier, Chabhilal in his lifetime filed a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No.11A/1970 before Civil Judge Class 2, Gariyaband stating that husband of Shrimati Rambhabai Dayalu Mahar further sold the land in favour of Ananddayal on 15.05.1967. In the said case, the question for consideration was to the effect that whether Rambhabai has right to alienate the subject property in favour of Chabhilal. The said suit was decreed in favour of Chabhilal vide judgment dated 11.02.1972.

¶58

The boundaries of the purchased property has been shown in the sale deed (Ex.P/1). In the North, there is road; in East, there is ‘badi’ of Shankarprasad . In South, there is house of Hariprasad. In the said sale deed, it has not been shown that any government land is situated in front of the house of Rambhabai and in the map annexed with the plaint for which two different suits against the encroachers Geeta Bai and Janakram have been filed. In the

¶59

¶60

sale deed, area has been mentioned. On comparison of the map annexed with the plaint along with the sale deed , on the basis of preponderance of probability, it is explicit that appellants Geeta Bai and Janakram have encroached upon the property of plaintiffs.

¶61

In the matter of M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs. v. Mahant Suresh Das and Others { 2020 (1) SCC 1 } wherein it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Court in civil trial applies standard of proof governed by preponderance of probabilities. This standard is also described sometimes a balance of probability or the preponderance of evidence. It need not reach certainty but it must carry a high degree of probability.

¶62

Learned trial Court only on the basis that Khasra number is not mentioned in the sale deed (Ex.P/1) and no specific pleading has been made as to on which Khasra number, house of plaintiffs is situated, has decided civil suit No.11A/1970, discarded the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs and held that the subject land is the government land and only State Government has the authority to evict it.

¶63

From the statement of Revenue Inspector Hariram(PW-4) and Patwari Dinesh Kumar who has been examined on behalf of the appellant as DW-2, it is explicit that in the Abadi land several houses got built up and there is no Batankan in the map. Hence, it is very difficult to demarcate. In such circumstances, the sale deed in which boundary has been mentioned is to be given more

¶64

¶65

weightage.

¶66

From the evidence available on record, this Court would affirm the finding of the learned appellate Court that the appellants Geetabai and Janakram are encroachers on the land of the plaintiffs.

¶67

The case laws relied upon by counsel for the appellants are distinguishable on facts.

¶68

In my view, judgments and decrees passed by learned first appellate Court are just, proper and legal which does not call for any interference.

¶69

For the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any merit in both the appeals as it involves no question of law much less any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 CPC.

¶70

Resultantly both the appeals stands dismissed in limine , upholding the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned first appellate Court.

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶73

Avinash

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Common judgment and decree dated 28.11.2017 of the Additional District Judge, Gariyaband in Civil Appeal No.2A/2012 (challenged in SA No.23 of 2018) and Civil Appeal No.1A/2012 (challenged in SA No.24 of 2018), reversing the trial Court's dismissal of the suits and decreeing handover of possession of 47.23 square meter and Rs.5,550/- damages with 6% interest against Defendant No.1.¶41
Additional District Judge, Gariyaband · 28.11.2017
Prior proceeding
Plaintiffs filed civil suits for possession and damages in respect of Khasra No.558/66 claiming title under sale deed dated 05.05.1967 through Rambhabai and a State-conferred Patta (Ex.P/13) over 2583 square feet, alleging encroachment by Defendant No.1 in January 1994.¶46
Prior proceeding
Written statement of Defendant No.1: possession of 480 square feet of Government Abadi land in Khasra No.558/66 running hotel business for 30 years; allegation of collusively obtained illegal Patta; claim of perfected title by adverse possession.¶47
Prior proceeding
Trial Court (Civil Judge Class 1, Gariyaband) framed 10 issues and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit as well as the counter suit of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 by judgment and decree dated 29.10.2011 in Civil Suit No.118A/2002.¶48
Prior proceeding
Respondents/plaintiffs' first appeal was allowed: the Additional District Judge, Gariyaband by judgment and decree dated 28.11.2017 in Civil Appeal No.2A/2012 reversed the trial Court and directed Defendant No.1 to hand over possession of 47.23 square meter and pay Rs.5,550/- damages with 6% interest till realisation.¶41
Prior proceeding
Earlier litigation: Chabhilal (through whom plaintiffs claim title) filed Civil Suit No.11A/1970 before Civil Judge Class 2, Gariyaband questioning Rambhabai's right to alienate the property; the suit was decreed in his favour by judgment dated 11.02.1972.¶57
Prior proceeding
Both second appeals (SA No.23 of 2018 by Geeta Bai and SA No.24 of 2018 by Janakram) involve the same dispute and were decided by this common judgment.¶37

Geeta Bai v. Nutan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta Bai v. Nutan Lal

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

Kamla Bai Vs Sabana Bai and Others

Dharmendra Mahobiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Janakram Vs Nutan Lal

Vrindavan Vs Shyam Kumar

Beena and Ors. Vs Late Heeramati Now Died State of C.G.