Ramcharan Vs Udasiya

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:8059

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

SA No. 345 of 2024

¶6

1 - Ramcharan S/o Late Premlal Aged About 54 Years Caste Ahir, Resident Of Village Korea Colliery, P.S. Chirmiri, Tahsil Chirmiri, District M.C.B., Chhattisgarh,... (Plaintiffs)

¶7

2 - Punni @ Subhagiya W/o Late Bachchalal Aged About 55 Years Caste Ahir, Resident Of Village Korea Colliery, P.S. Chirmiri, Tahsil Chirmiri, District M.C.B., Chhattisgarh

¶8

3 - Fulbai @ Fulmati W/o Late Jagarnath Aged About 52 Years Caste Ahir, Resident Of Village Korea Colliery, P.S. Chirmiri, Tahsil Chirmiri, District M.C.B., Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Udasiya W/o Late Ramprasad Aged About 52 Years Caste - Ahir, Resident Of Near Bazar, Gelhapani, Incharge Center And Tahsil Chirmiri, District M.C.B., Chhattisgarh,...(Defendants)

¶12

2 - Lalita @ Gyanwali W/o Budhram Aged About 35 Years Caste - Ahir, Resident Of Near Bazar, Gelhapani, Incharge Center And Tahsil Chirmiri, District M.C.B., Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Aarati D/o Late Ramprasad Aged About 20 Years Caste - Ahir, Resident Of Near Bazar, Gelhapani, Incharge Center And Tahsil Chirmiri, District M.C.B., Chhattisgarh

¶14

4 - Nanki W/o Anand Ram Aged About 50 Years Caste - Ahir, Resident Of Near Bazar, Gelhapani, Incharge Center And Tahsil Chirmiri, District M.C.B., Chhattisgarh

¶15

5 - Vindhyawasi W/o Raghunandan Aged About 48 Years Caste - Ahir, Resident Of Village Chirmi, Tahsil Bachrapodi, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh

¶16

2

¶17

6 - Kalawati W/o Ramavatar Aged About 46 Years Caste Ahir, Resident Of Village Pendri, Tahsil Kelhari, District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh

¶18

7 - Vindawati @ Guddi W/o Suresh @ Babalu Aged About 48 Years Caste Ahir, Resident Of Village Kasra Bodhar Ke Beech Me, And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh

¶19

8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Koriya, Chhattisgarh, (Now District M.C.B., Chhattisgarh)

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Appellants : Mr. Ram Sevak Soni, Adv. For Respondent No. 8 : Mr. Aman Deep Singh, Panel Lawyer.

¶22

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

¶23

Order On Board 14-02-2025

¶24

Heard.

¶25

1. This is plaintiffs' Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.06.2024 passed by 1^st District Judge, Manendragarh, District Koria (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 23-A/2023, affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2023 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Manendragarh, District Koria (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 60-A/22, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit.

¶26

[For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred to as per their status shown in the plaint filed by the plaintiffs before the trial Court]

¶27

2. Facts of the case, as per averments made in the plaint, are that the plaintiffs have instituted civil suit before the Civil Judge, Class-II, Manendragarh, District Koria (C.G.) for declaration of their absolute title and possession over the suit land restraining the defendants No. 1 to 3 from interfering with the possession over the suit land pleading inter alia

¶28

3

¶29

that plaintiffs and defendants are family members / successor of Premlal, who was original owner of the suit land. Premlal had obtained suit land from his father – late Dubraj Aheer, as such, the suit land was ancestral property of plaintiffs and defendants. It is further pleaded that after death of Premlal, his son late Ramprasad got mutated his name in revenue records of land area 7.148 hectare including suit land in his name and, thereafter, he sold total 4.318 hectare of that land, subsequently, he died in the year 2011. It is further pleading of plaintiffs that out of 7.418 hectare ancestral property of plaintiffs & defendants, late Ramprasad had sold the land, which is more than his share i.e. 4.318 hectare, therefore, defendants No. 1 to 3, who are wife and daughters of late Ramprasad are not entitled to get any share in the suit land, as such, the plaintiffs be declared absolute owner & possession holder of the suit lands bearing Khasra No. 886, area 0.04 hectare, Khasra No. 984, area 0.34 hectare, Khasra No. 986, area 0.87 hectare and Khasra No. 990, area 0.17 hectare, respectively.

¶30

3. Respondents/defendants filed their written statement stating inter alia that since late Ramprasad had sold property during existence of joint Hindu Family, as there was no partition effected between sons and daughters of late Premlal and he sold land for need of the family, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get declaration of absolute owner of suit lands.

¶31

4. On the basis of pleading of both the parties, learned trial Court framed as many as five issues and recorded evidence adduced by the parties and after considering the same, dismissed the suit filed by plaintiffs by recording a finding that during selling of said land by Ramprasad,

¶32

4

¶33

plaintiffs & defendants were living as joint Hindu family and it has not been proved by plaintiffs that Ramprasad had sold said land for his own or without any legal cause. Learned Trial Court further recorded a finding that since suit property is ancestral property of plaintiffs and defendants, therefore, plaintiffs cannot be held absolute owner of the suit property.

¶34

5. The plaintiffs preferred first appeal against the judgment & decree passed by the trial Court. First Appellate Court vide its impugned judgment & decree dated 22.06.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No. 23-A/2023 has dismissed the appeal upholding judgment & decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, this appeal.

¶35

6. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that since late Ramprasad had sold more than his share of ancestral property, as such, his legal heirs i.e. defendants No. 1 to 3 are not entitled to get any share over the remaining property, which is suit property in the instant case. But learned counsel for appellants/plaintiffs conceded the fact that when Ramprasad sold the said property, at that time, no partition was effected between sons and daughter of late Premlal, meaning thereby, suit land was joint family property of plaintiffs & defendants, it has not been proved by plaintiffs/appellants that Ramprasad had sold said land without any lawful purpose or without any interest of the family.

¶36

7. Having considered the aforesaid facts and further considering the fact that undisputedly the suit land is ancestral property of plaintiffs and defendants, who are sons & daughters / class – I heir of late Premlal, therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled to get absolute title over the suit

¶37

5

¶38

propety, as there are other class I heir of late Premlal, as such, they are also co-sharers of suit property.

¶39

8. In view of foregoing discussion, no substantial question of law is found to be involved in this appeal. Consequently, second appeal is dismissed at the motion stage itself. No cost(s).

¶40

9. A decree be drawn up accordingly.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶43

Amit/-

¶44

AMITKUMARDUBEY Digitallysigned byAMITKUMARDUBEYDate:2025.02.1816:26:29+0530

Ramcharan v. Udasiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramcharan v. Udasiya

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

Bhuneshwar Sao Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Savitri Yadav Vs Rajeev Kumar

Tulsi Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kiran Nirmalkar Vs Pramod Nirmalkar

Vasundra Yadu Vs Smt. Surbhi Singh

Suresh Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh