Rambaran (Dead) through Lrs Ramkunwar (Died) Vs Ramdevan (Died) through Lrs

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:10258

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

PRIYANKA VERMA

¶6

Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.03.04 11:03:43 +0530

¶7

SA No. 371 of 2001

¶8

1 - Rambaran (Dead) Through Lrs Ramkunwar (Died) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 21-10-2024

¶9

2 - Baleshwar Ram S/o Rambaran Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Bakna, Tehsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶10

3 - Ratiram S/o Rambaran Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Bakna, Tehsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh (Lrs Of Defendant/resp. 1)

¶11

4 - Chamruram S/o Shivratan Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village Bakna, Tehsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶12

5 - Bhuneshwar S/o Ramcharan Rajwar R/o Village Bakna, Tehsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶13

6 - Lalchand S/o Ramcharan, R/o Village Bakna, Tehsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶14

7 - Dhaneshwar S/o Ramcharan, R/o Village Bakna, Tehsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶15

8 - Ramnath S/o Sijaram Rajwar Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Juna Lakhanpur, Tehsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh

...Appellants

2

versus

1 - Ramdevan (Died) Through Lrs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 21-102024

¶20

1.1 - A. Ramkrishna Rajwade S/o Ramdevan Aged About 61 Years R/o Village - Kanthi, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶21

1.2 - B. Shubhlal Rajwade S/o Ramdevan Aged About 58 Years R/o Village - Kanthi, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶22

1.3 - C. Babulal Rajwade S/o Ramdevan Aged About 56 Years R/o Village - Kanthi, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶23

1.4 - D. Piyan Rajwade S/o Ramdevan Aged About 51 Years R/o Village - Kanthi, Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh

¶24

2 - Sukhmaniya @ Udaipurhin Wd/o Late Gedaram Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Lalmati, Tehsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh (Plaintiffs 1 And 2)

¶25

3 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Surguja, Ambikapur (Proforma Dfd. No. 7)

¶26

... Respondent(s)

¶27

For Appellants	: Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate
For Legal Representatives of	: Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate
Respondent No.1
For State	: Mr. S.K. Puria, PL

¶28

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶29

03/03/2025

¶30

1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree

¶31

dated 10.07.2001 passed by the 1^st Additional District Judge, Ambikapur,

¶32

3

¶33

District Surguja in Civil Appeal No.44-A/99 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 31.03.99 passed by the 1^st Additional Civil Judge, Class II, Ambikapur in Civil Suit No.27-A/98, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the Suit.

¶34

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are addressed as per the nomenclature given before the trial Court.

¶35

3. Necessary facts of the case are that Late Ramdevan and respondent No.2- Sukhmaniya @ Udaipurhin filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title and further for declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of defendants No.1 to 5 is null and void and also for permanent injunction against defendants No.1 to 6 restraining them from interfering with their possession in respect of the suit land. It was averred by the plaintiffs that the suit land was the self-acquired property of Gautu Rajwar, who had two sons named Geda and Konda and a daughter namely Smt. Bhukhli. It was further averred that the subject land was settled in the exclusive names of Geda and Konda and plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are related to Bhukhli. Bhukhli was kept as “Gharjihin”, by her father and according to their caste customs, a Gharjihin daughter gets all the rights like that of a son in her father’s property. When it came into the knowledge of the plaintiffs that defendants No.1 & 2 and the father of defendants No.3 to 5 got a sale deed registered in their favour after playing fraud against Geda Ram, the said Civil Suit was filed.

¶36

4. Defendants No.1 to 6 in their written statements denied the averments of the plaintiffs. It has been further averred that after the death of Konda in

¶37

4

¶38

the year 1996, Geda became the absolute owner of the subject property and he duly got transferred the land in favour of defendants No.1 & 2 and the father of defendants No.3 to 5 and also in favour of defendant No.6 respectively.

¶39

5. The trial Court based on the pleadings of the parties, framed as many as 6 issues and after evaluating the evidence, dismissed the Suit, which was challenged by the plaintiffs in First Appeal No.44-A/1999, which was allowed by the First Appellate Court and thereby, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside.

¶40

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that during pendency of the First Appeal, defendant No.1- Rambaran died and the appellants/plaintiffs did not take any steps to bring his LRs on record. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the 1^st Appellate Court is nullity as the Suit has already abated. In view of such, this Appeal may be admitted on such substantial question of law and consequently, the Appeal may also be allowed on such score and the matter may be remitted to the 1^st Appellate Court to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

¶41

7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the Appeal is admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:-

¶42

“Whether without impleading the legal heirs of defendant No.1- Rambaran, who allegedly died during the pendency of the First Appeal, the decree passed against him is bad in law in view

¶43

5

¶44

of the fact the appeal stood already abated and the decree against a dead person is nullity in the eye of law?”

¶45

8. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of respondent No.1 would fairly submit that when respondent No.1 died during the pendency of the First Appeal, it was the legal requirement to bring his LRs on record. Therefore, this Appeal may be remitted for affording an opportunity to the plaintiffs/respondents herein to file a suitable application in this regard, which may be directed to be considered in accordance with law and thereafter, to proceed in the Appeal.

¶46

9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and particularly considering the fact that during pendency of the First Appeal, defendant- Rambaran had already died, whose legal heirs have preferred this Second Appeal, and further, during the First Appeal, the plaintiffs/respondents herein never took any steps to bring his LRs on record, this Court is of the view that the decree passed against the appellants is a nullity.

¶47

10. For the foregoing reasons, the matter is remitted to the 1^st Appellate Court i.e. 1^st Additional District Judge, Ambikapur to restore Civil Appeal No.44-A/99 to its original number. The concerned Court is directed to afford an opportunity to the respondents/plaintiffs to prefer a suitable application thereof, if they so desire. Further, if any such application is filed, the same shall be considered on its own merits and thereafter, an appropriate order shall be passed in accordance with law.

¶48

6

¶49

11. Resultantly, the decree passed by the 1^st Appellate Court is hereby set aside and accordingly, the Second Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein above.

¶50

12. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in affirmative.

¶51

13. Both the parties are directed to appear before the 1^st Appellate Court on 03.04.2025.

¶52

14. A decree be drawn accordingly.

¶53

15. No order as to cost(s).

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge