Dismissed

Mahesh Ram v. Smt.Janki

Chhattisgarh HC17 Nov 2025SA/296/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiffs sought declaration of title and possession over ancestral land, contending sale deeds executed by Asadu were void as the property was joint family property. The court found the suit barred by limitation and dismissed the second appeal without deciding the other substantial questions of law.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mahesh Ram Vs Smt.Janki — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

NIRMALA RAO

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

Judgment reserved on 07.11.2025

¶6

Judgment delivered on 18.11.2025

¶7

SA No. 296 of 2004

¶8

1 - Mahesh Ram S/o Chitrasen Mahara Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Chote Amabal , Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - Raoji S/o Chitrasen Mahara Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Chote Amabal , Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3 - Akbar S/o Chitrasen Mahara Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Chote Amabal , Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4 - Bondka @ Peelaram S/o Chitrasen Mahara Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Chote Amabal , Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

¶12

5 - Manthar S/o Chitrasen Mahara Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Chote Amabal , Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

¶13

6 - Murha S/o Koliha Mahara Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Chote Amabal , Tehsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

¶14

7 - (Deleted) Chitrasen As Per The Hon'ble Court Order Dated 02-03-2022 And 0607-2022.

¶15

... Appellant(s)

¶16

versus

¶17

1 - Smt.Janki W/o Late Madhusudan Brahman Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Chote Amabal , Post Bade Amabal , Police Station Bhanpuri, Tehsil Jagadalpur.

¶18

¶19

2 - Neelmani (Died And Deletde) Through Lrs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 18/07/2025

¶20

2.1 - Dhano Panigrahi W/o Late Shri Neelmani Panigarahi Aged About 54 Years R/o Pandit Para, Chote Amawal Tahsil Bhanpuri, Jagdalpur Dist- Bastar Chhattisgarh

¶21

3 - Sudharshan S/o Late Madhusudan Brahman Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Chote Amabal , Post Bade Amabal , Police Station Bhanpuri, Tehsil Jagadalpur.

¶22

4 - (Deleted) Premwati As Per The Hon'ble Court Order Dated 02-03-2022 And 0607-2022.

¶23

5 - Ram Prasad (Died And Deleted )through Lrs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 18/07/2025

¶24

5.1 - Somesh S/o Late Ram Prasad Aged About 45 Years R/o Hikmipara Near Vinod Service Center Jagdalpur DistBastar Chhattisgarh 5.2 - Gajanand S/o Ram Prasad Aged About 38 Years R/o Hikmipara Near Vinod Service Center Jagdalpur DistBastar Chhattisgarh 6 - Chintamani Panigrahi S/o Padumnath Aged About 42 Years R/o Bodhghat Colony, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

¶25

7 - Pankaj Panigrahi S/o Padumnath Aged About 30 Years R/o Bodhghat Colony, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

¶26

8 - Tambhawati (Deleted) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 17-10-2025

¶27

9 - Bholanath S/o Padumnath Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Chote Amabal, Post Badeamabal, Police Station Bhanpuri, Tehsil Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.

¶28

10 - (Deleted) Padumanth As Per The Hon'ble Court Order Dated 02-03-2022 And 06-07-2022.

¶29

11 - Tagru S/o Mata Dhakad Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Chote Amabal, Post Badeamabal, Police Station Bhanpuri, Tehsil Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.

¶30

12 - (Deleted ) Smt. Kamla As Per The Hon'ble Court Order Dated 02-03-2022 And

¶31

¶32

06-07-2022.

¶33

13 - Smt. Rambati D/o Late Sahadeo Brahman , W/o Late Uttam Brahman Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Jaibal Tehsil Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.

¶34

14 - Smt. Mohanbati D/o Late Sahadeo Brahman , W/o Matura Prasad Brahman Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Muriya, Tehsil Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.

¶35

15 - (Deleted) Smt. Kusumbati As Per The Hon'ble Court Order Dated 02-03-2022 And 06-07-2022.

¶36

16 - Smt. Prembati D/o Late Sahadeo Brahman W/o Late Kailash Prasad Brahman Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Nandpura, Tehsil Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.

¶37

17 - Smt. Pilibai @ Arundhati D/o Late Sahadeo Brahman, W/o Chintamani Prasad Brahman Aged About 32 Years R/o Panarapara, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.

¶38

18 - Damru S/o Late Sahadeo Brahman Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Choteamabal, Post Badeamabal, Tehsil Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh. 19 - Murari S/o Late Sahadeo Brahman Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Choteamabal, Post Badeamabal, Tehsil Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.

¶39

20 - Bhalu S/o Bisru Mahara Aged About 60 Years R/o Badeamabal, Tehsil Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.

¶40

21 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector , Bastar, District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.

¶41

... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Appellants : Shri Prafull Bharat, Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Harshal Chauhan, Advocate. For Respondents No.3, 4, 6, 5.1, 5.2, 7, 9, 10,11, 16, 18 & 19 : Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate alongwith Shri Sourabh Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No.21/ State : Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Dy.G.A.

¶42

¶43

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶44

CAV ORDER

¶45

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

¶46

(1) Whether the finding in relation to partition is perverse and based upon no positive evidence on record?

¶47

(2) Whether the Courts below were not justified in holding that the seller namely Asadu was an absolute owner to execute the sale deeds in relation to property under dispute?

¶48

(3) Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the suit was barred by limitation?”

¶49

The appellants/ plaintiffs have filed this appeal assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Civil Appeal No. 14-A of 2002 dated 19.2.2004, whereby, the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court was affirmed.

¶50

The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and possession against the defendants pertaining to lands bearing Survey Nos.90, 253, 9.94 and 22, total admeasuring 10.78 acres of land situated at Village Choteamabal. Initially, the suit property was recorded in the name of Chitu Mahara. After his death, his sons namely, Koliha, Asadu and Chitrasen inherited it. As per the prevailing custom in the Bastar State, the name of the eldest son namely Koliha was recorded in the revenue record, though the other two brothers were also in possession. Chitrasen was minor and mentally weak, therefore, his share was being cultivated by Asadu and some part of land was cultivated by other persons. Asadu had given 8 acres of land to the defendants for

¶51

¶52

cultivation on “Adhiya” and after the death of Asadu, when the plaintiffs made attempt to cultivate the said land in the year 1992, defendants No.1 to 20 objected it and thereafter, a suit was filed on 6.11.1993. Plaintiffs No.1 to 5 are the sons of late Chitrasen and plaintiff No.6 is son of late Koliha, whereas plaintiff No.7 was Chitrasen, who died during the pendency of appeal. The family tree is given herein below:

¶53

I------------------------	Chitu Mahra l --------------I---------------------	----------------I
Koliha (died) I	Asadu (died issueless)	Chitrasen (Plaintiff No.7) I
Murha (Plaintiff No.6) I-------------------------I------	--------I------------------I---------	I I I I ----------------I
Mahesh Ram Raoji	Akbar Bondka	Mandhar
(P.No.1) (P.No.2)	(P.No.3) (P.No.4)	(P.No.5)

¶54

The plaintiffs further pleaded that the defendants in collusion with the revenue authorities got entered their names in the revenue record. They pleaded that the possession of defendants No.1 to 20 on the basis of a forged sale deeds, is illegal. It is further pleaded that as the suit property was joint family property, therefore, Asadu alone had no right to alienate it and therefore, the sale deed executed by Asadu in favour of original defendants No.1 to 6 are void.

¶55

Defendants No.1 to 6 filed their separate written statements and pleaded that the sale deeds were executed by late Asadu in favour of defendant No.1 - Madhusudan on 8.3.1966; in favour of defendant No.2 – Padumnath on 11.1.1955, 11.3.1966 & 22.4.1968; in favour of Mata, father of defendants No.3 to 5 on 21.7.1958; and in favour of defendant No.6 – Sahdev on 22.12.1954. The sale deeds have been placed on record as Ex.D/12, D/4, D/3, D/2, D/8 & D/9, respectively.

¶56

¶57

The orders of mutation were passed in favour of defendants No.1 to 6. During the pendency of the civil suit and appeal, the original defendants died and their legal representatives were brought on record and they are in peaceful possession of the suit property. Learned Trial Court framed issues; parties led their evidence and thereafter, the suit was dismissed holding it barred by limitation, as it was not filed within the prescribed period of 12 years from the date of execution of the sale deeds; the plaintiffs failed to prove that they were cultivating the suit property; proper Court fees was not affixed; and the plaintiffs failed to challenge Kishtbandi (Ex.D/1) of the year 1954-55 filed by the respondents. The plaintiffs preferred a first appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19.2.2004.

¶58

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants would argue that the Courts below failed to consider the Misal Bandobast of the year 1913-14 (Ex.P/1), Jamabandi of the year 1937-38 (Ex.P/2), Kishtbandi of the year 1937-38 (Ex.P/3) as these documents would show that the suit land was recorded in the name of Chitu Mahra and after his death, his sons inherited the property. He would contend that the suit property was joint family property and no partition had taken place between the three brothers. He would contend that the learned Courts below committed error of law while holding that there was partition. Learned Senior Advocate would further submit that the learned Courts below erred in holding that late Asadu was competent to execute sale deeds. He would submit that the suit was filed on 6.11.1993 by the plaintiffs No.1 to 5 and it was within 12 years after attaining majority and was within limitation according to the provisions of Article 109 of the

¶59

¶60

Limitation Act but both the Courts below failed to appreciate the said fact.

¶61

With regard to limitation, learned Senior Advocate would submit that the suit was filed by sons of Chitrasen (plaintiffs No.1 to 5) and Murha son of Koliha. He would argue that the sale deeds executed by Asadu in favour of original defendants No.1 to 6 were the outcome of fraud and therefore, the mutation orders are bad in law. He would pray to allow the second appeal.

¶62

Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate appearing for respondents No.3, 4, 6, 5.1, 5.2, 7, 9, 10,11, 16, 18 & 19 would submit that the sale deeds were executed by Asadu in favour of defendants No.1, 2, 3 to 5 & 6 on 8.3.1996, 11.1.1955, 11.3.1966 & 22.4.1968, 21.7.1958 & 22.12.1954 whereas, the suit was filed only on 6.11.1993. He would argue that there was partition between the three brothers of Chitu Mahra and with regard to partition there is concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts below.

¶63

With regard to limitation, Mr. Sourabh Sharma would submit that Chitrasen, son of Chitu Mahra was aged about 60 years on the date of filing of civil suit whereas, plaintiff No.6 – Murha, son of Koliha was aged about 40 years. The cause of action arose in favour of Chitrasen and Murha first time in 1954 and thereafter in 1958, 1966 and lastly in 1968. He would argue that between 1954 and 1968, plaintiff No.7 – Chitrasen was more than 18 years. Plaintiff No.6 – Murha attained majority in 1971 but they failed to file a civil suit within 12 years after attaining the age of majority. It is also argued that plaintiffs No.1 to 5 were not born when last sale deed dated 12.4.1968 was executed. He would contend that the Article 109 of the Limitation Act sets a 12 year

¶64

¶65

limitation period for a Hindu son to file a suit to set aside an alienation of ancestral property made by his father, and not an alienation made by a brother. He would contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶66

First of all, I will deal with the substantial question of law No.3 with regard to limitation. If this question of law is decided in favour of the appellants then occasion would arise to decide other substantial questions of law. Initially, the suit land and other lands were recorded in the name of Chitu Mahra. Koliha, Asadu and Chitrasen are his sons. Koliha and Asadu have died. Chitrasen was plaintiff No.7 in the plaint. Plaintiff – Chitrasen (PW-1) in his evidence has admitted that 8 acres of land was in possession of Asadu and during his life time, he cultivated it. Sukhdev (PW-2) admitted in paragraph 22 of cross-examination that the lands in possession of Asadu were recorded in his name. Defendant witness No.1 Padumnath stated that Asadu got the suit land from Kunwar Saheb and cultivated it during his life time. DW-2, DW-5 & DW-6 supported the case of the defendants. The document (Ex.P/1) Jamabandi of the year 1938 would show that the suit property was recorded in the name of Asadu. Asadu alienated the property during his life time. The first sale deed was executed by Asadu on 22.12.1954 Ex.D/9 and the last sale deed was executed on 12.4.1968 Ex.D/2 and these facts were within the knowledge of plaintiffs No.6 & 7 but no objection was raised. Article 109 of the Limitation Act deals with suit by a Hindu governed by Mitakshara Law to set aside his father’s alienation of ancestral property. The prescribed period of limitation is 12 years running from the date the alienee takes possession. The age of Chitrasen, brother of Asadu was 60 years in 1993. Thus, in 1954 he was 21 years old when the first sale deed was executed and 35 years

¶67

¶68

in 1968 when the last sale deed was executed. The age of Murha was 1 year in 1954 and 15 years in 1968. He attained majority in 1971 but the suit was filed only on 6.11.1993. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants/ plaintiffs took a plea that after attaining majority by appellants No.1 to 5, the suit was filed. Appellants No.1 to 5 are sons of Chitrasen and were not born in between 1954 and 1968, therefore, no right had accrued in their favour and there was no need to implead them as plaintiffs.

¶69

Further, Article 109 of the Limitation Act would not attract as the alienation was not made by father of the plaintiffs but by the brother of plaintiff No.7. The period of limitation of 12 years begins to run from date of possession. As per the evidence led by the parties, the possession was handed over to original defendants No.1 to 6 immediately after execution of the sale deeds.

¶70

For declaration period of limitation according to Article 58 of the Limitation Act is three years and the clock starts from the date the “right to sue first accrues”. This means the period of limitation is not extended by new causes of action and the suit must be filed within three years from the earliest point at which the right to sue arose.

¶71

Article 65 of the Indian Limitation Act sets a 12 year period of limitation for a suit to recover possession of immovable property based on title. After this period, if the defendant’s possession has been peaceful, open and continuous, the plaintiff’s right to sue is extinguished.

¶72

In the present case, no right accrued in favour of plaintiffs No.1 to 5, who are sons of Chitrasen between 1954 to 1968, as they were born after execution of sale deeds by Asadu in favour of original defendants No.1 to 6. Plaintiff No.7 – Chitrasen, who had right and opportunity to

¶73

¶74

file the suit, failed to institute it within prescribed period of limitation. Likewise, plaintiff No.6 attained majority in 1971 but suit was filed in 1993 after 22 years. Thus, the suit was barred by limitation and learned Courts below rightly recorded finding against the plaintiffs, while deciding issue of limitation.

¶75

On the basis of above discussions, the substantial question of law No.3 with regard to limitation is decided against the appellants herein. As the issue of limitation is decided against the appellants there is no need to decide other substantial questions of law.

¶76

In view of the aforesaid observations, the appeal fails and is hereby

¶77

dismissed . A decree be drawn Accordingly.

¶78

Sd/-

¶79

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

¶80

Judge

¶81

Nimmi

Mahesh Ram v. Smt.Janki

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mahesh Ram v. Smt.Janki

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aarti Vs Bhagwan Singh

Shivprasad Vs Dinesh Lanjhiyana

Jagdish Prasad Vs Ankita Khalkho

Ramadhin Sahu Vs Avinash Sharma

Vivek Kathuriya Vs Khub Lal Sahu

Rameshar Bhardwaj Vs Himmatlal Sahu