Phool Singh Sonwani Vs Diman Singh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:54512

¶3

Digitally signed by ALOK ALOK SHARMA SHARMA Date:2025.12.19 17:25:12 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

SA No. 453 of 2015

¶7

1 - Phool Singh Sonwani S/o Late Maniram Sonwani Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Nahna Chandi, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through Power Of Attorney Vidya Bhushan Sonwani, S/o Shri Phool Singh Sonwani, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village Nahna Chandi, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..........Plaintiff, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Diman Singh S/o Late Kalyan Singh R/o Near Sharda Mandir, Lendi Pond Babu Jagjivan Road, Old D.K.Hospital Ward, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Village- Sarbada, P.O. Madeli, Tehsil And Thana- Kurud, DistrictDhamtari, Chhattisgarh ..........Defendant No.1, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Taman Singh Sonwani S/o Late Kalyan Singh Sonwani Upper Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Collector, Narayanpur, District- Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh ..........Defendant No.2, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Satish Kumar Sonwani S/o Late Kalyan Singh Sonwani R/o Behind Old Bus Stand, Baastal, Near Bidi Kharkhana, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Near Bihari Dhaba, Abhanpur, Tehsil- Abhanpur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..........Defendant No.3, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Anil Kumar Sonwani S/o Late Kalyan Singh Sonwani R/o Village Sarbada, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ..........Defendant No.4, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Ramesh Kumar Sonwani S/o Late Kalyan Singh Sonwani R/o Village Sarbada, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ..........Defendant No.5, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶15

6 - Smt. Nani Bai W/o Late Kalyan Singh Sonwani Through Taman Singh Sonwani, Upper Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, Presently Through Taman Singh Sonwani Collector, Narayanpur, District- Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh ..........Defendant No.6, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

2

¶17

7 - Smt. Indu Anant Registrar W/o Shri Vinod Anant Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ..........Defendant No.7, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

8 - Smt. Suman Chaturvedi W/o T.S. Chaturvedi R/o Guru Ghasidas Colony, New Rajendra Nagar, Behind Vijeta Complex, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..........Defendant No.8, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

9 - Smt. Jhagita Joshi W/o Shri Devendra Kumar Joshi R/o Near Budhi Maa Temple, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..........Defendant No.9, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶20

10 - Smt. Savita Khevar W/o Shri Yashwant Khevar P.O. Selud, P.S. Patan, R/o Village Bohardih, Utai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Respondents No. 1 To 10 All Are Legal Heirs Of Late Kalyan Singh, S/o Manohar Satnami. ..........Defendant No.10, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶21

11 - Dr. Domar Singh Sonwani Late Manohar Sonwani Chief Medical And Health Officer, Korea, Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh, Presently Resident Of Retired Health Officer, Sanjay Nagar, Near Police Station, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..........Defendant No.11, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶22

12 - Ashok Kumar Barle R/o Village Tavera Khapri, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Legal Heir Of Smt. Mankunwar, D/o Manohar Sonwani ..........Defendant No.12, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶23

13 - Smt. Sundari Bai W/o Late Bahuran R/o Village Pinka Par, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ..........Defendant No.13, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶24

14 - Rakesh Kumar S/o Shobhitram R/o Village Amvari, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Legal Heir Of Smt. Kondi D/o Manohar. ..........Defendant No.14, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶25

15 - Smt. Tetaki Aadil W/o Shri K.R.Aadil Clerk In Pwd Department, Near Govt. Hospital, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ..........Defendant No.15, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶26

16 - Smt. Rasni W/o Budhru R/o Village Ganeshpur, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ..........Defendant No.16, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶27

17 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..........Defendant No.17, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶28

18 - Lalit Kumar Sahu S/o Late Baldau Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Hanuman Statue, Sanjay Nagar, Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..........Defendant No.18, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶29

19 - A Smt. Jaya Sahu W/o Late Shri Dushyant Kumar Sahu, Aged About 23 Years

¶30

3

¶31

R/o Near Ram Janki Temple, Sanjay Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..........Defendant No.19a, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶32

19.1 - Kumari Lusika Sahu, D/o Late Shri Dushyant Kumar Sahu, Aged About 2 And Half Years, Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Jaya Sahu, R/o Near Ram Janki Temple, Sanjay Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..........Defendant No. 19b

¶33

	... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) :	Mr. Ravindra Sharma, and Mr. Chandresh Shrivastav, Advocate.
For Respondent/State :	Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1	Mr. H. B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, and Ms. A. Sandhya
to 18	Rao, Advocate.

¶34

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Judgment on Board

¶35

07/11/2025

¶36

1. The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.05.2015 passed by learned District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 04/2013, whereby the first appeal filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2013 passed by learned 09^th Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 1-A/2009, has been affirmed.

¶37

2. The plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants over the suit land Khasra No. 6/1 area 0.11 hectare, Khasra No. 66/1 area 0.04 hectare, Khasra No. 61/02 area 0.18 hectare, Khasra No. 171/3 area 0.11 hectare, Khasra No. 312 area 0.10 hectare, Khasra No. 315/1 area 0.93 hectare, Khasra No. 322/1 area 2.23 hectare, Khasra No. 320 area 0.14 hectare and Khasra No. 159/2 area 0.16 hectare, situated at village Nahna Chandi, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur. The suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed by the learned trial Court, and the first appeal filed by him is also dismissed. Hence, the second appeal.

¶38

4

¶39

3. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The plaintiff and defendants are the legal heirs of Gopal Sonwani. Gopal Sonwani had two sons, namely Manohar and Maniram. Maniram had two sons, namely Loor Singh and Phool Singh (plaintiff). Loor Singh is not a party in the suit. The defendants are the legal heirs of Manohar. It is also not in dispute that the property of Gopal Sonwani was partitioned between his two sons, Manohar and Maniram, on 17.11.1954 by a registered deed of partition. It is also not in dispute that the defendant Nos. 18 and 19 are the purchasers of the land of Khasra Nos. 760, 806, 815, 817 and 826 from the defendant Nos. 1 to 16.

¶40

4. The plaintiff has filed the civil suit with the pleading that by the registered partition deed dated 17.11.1954, his father Maniram has obtained the land of Khasra No. 6 area 82.89 acres, piece of Khasra No. 12 area 5.37 acres, piece of Khasra No. 62/2 area 0.80 acres, piece of Khasra No. 120 area 6.49 acres, piece of Khasra No. 159/2 area 0.40 acres, piece of Khasra No. 171/3 area 0.26 acres, piece of Khasra No. 312 area 0.21 acres, piece of Khasra No. 315 area 5.00 acres, piece of Khasra No. 318 area 40.88 acres, piece of Khasra No. 320 area 0.46 acres, piece of Khasra No. 322 area 5.90 acres, piece of Khasra No. 325 area 25.68 acres, piece of Khasra No. 330/6 area 15.60 acres and piece of Khasra No. 332 area 6.07 acres, total area 196.01 acres in his share and came into separate possession of the same. Manohar has obtained the property of village Sarbada Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari, in his share by the said partition. After the partition in the year 1954, the father of the plaintiff died, and at that time, he was minor. Since the brother of the plaintiff, Loor Singh, was unable to protect the interest of the plaintiff, the property of Maniram (father of the plaintiff) has also been partitioned between the plaintiff Phool Singh and his brother, Loor Singh, by a registered partition deed dated 08.04.1959. At that time, the plaintiff was minor and therefore his cousin brother Kalyan Singh, who is the son of Manohar have appeared as the guardian of the plaintiff and signed the partition deed dated 08.04.1959.

¶41

5

¶42

In the partition between the plaintiff and his brother, Loor Singh, the plaintiff obtained the suit property in his share. Subsequently, the lands obtained by the plaintiff in his partition are re-numbered by the revenue department, and the new number of Khasra comes as 2, 111, 607, 612, 648, 760, 806, 815, 817 and 826 respectively. Since Kalyan Singh was taking care of the property of the plaintiff as his guardian, he got his name mutated in the revenue records in his own name over the property of the plaintiff, which he obtained in partition. However, the possession remained with the plaintiff. When the plaintiff came to know about the fact that the suit land is recorded in the name of Kalyan Singh and other defendants, he raised an objection, but he was assured by the defendant that they would re-mutate his name in the revenue records very soon. However, the same could not materialise. The defendants have no right title or possession over the suit property. The plaintiff has made an application before the Tahsildar Abhanpur in the year 2006 for mutation of his name in the revenue records over the suit property, but his application was rejected on 31.03.2006, saying that the issue of title is involved in the case and Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to decide the title and then the cause of action for filing of the civil suit arose.

¶43

5. It is also pleaded that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants No. 1 to 16 have alienated total 4.56 hectare of the suit property bearing Khasra No. 760, 806, 815, 817, 826 area 0.10 hectare, 1.93 hectare, 2.23 hectare, 0.14 hectare and 0.16 hectare respectively to the defendants Nos. 18 and 19 through the registered sale deed dated 23.01.2007. He also claimed to declare the said sale deed as null and void.

¶44

6. The defendant No.1 to 16 have not filed any written statement and remained ex-parte throughout the proceeding.

¶45

7. The defendant No.18 and 19 contested the claim of the plaintiffs and filed their written statement denied the plaint averment and pleaded that they have purchased the suit land of Khasra No. 760, 806, 815, 817 and 826 total

¶46

6

¶47

area 4.56 hectare from defendant No. 1 to 16 through registered sale deed dated 23.01.2007 after verifying revenue records and they are the bonafide purchaser. After its purchase they developed the land after investing a huge amount. In the partition deed dated 08.04.1959 which was executed between the Fool Singh and his brother Loor Singh, the lands purchased by the defendant No.18 and 19 are not mentioned which shows that it was not the property of plaintiff. If the plaintiff would have obtained the suit property in partition with his brother, the same would have been mentioned in the partition deed. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff has not made his brother Loor Singh or his LRs as the party defendant in the suit, therefore, the suit is suffers from non-joinder of the necessary parties. After attaining the majority the plaintiff did not do anything for about 43 years and the land was recorded in the names of defendants under their ownership since more than 30 years. The valuation of the suit was also questioned as the plaintiff is require to value the suit on the basis of the value of the registered sale deed, therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

¶48

8. The learned trial Court has framed 9 issues, and after recording evidence of the parties, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit land was obtained by him in partition with his brother, and there is no document produced by him that the suit property fell within the share of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court has also decided that there is no defect of non-joinder of the necessary parties in the suit. The suit is not barred by limitation, and the defendants No. 18 and 19 are the bona fide purchasers of the suit property. The first appeal filed by the plaintiff has also been dismissed, and the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is upheld, and the decree is affirmed.

¶49

9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the property of Gopal was partitioned between Manohar and Maniram by a registered partition

¶50

7

¶51

deed dated 16.11.1954, (Ex.P/1), in which the details of the properties mentioned, which the father of the plaintiff, namely Maniram, obtained. Ex.P/2 is the partition deed between the plaintiff and his brother, Loor Singh, executed on 08.04.1959. Kalyan Singh, who is the son of Manohar, has no right or title over the property of Maniram, and by the partition deed dated 16.11.1954, the suit properties were obtained by Maniram. Without having any right or title over the suit property, he got his name mutated in the revenue records and sold it to the defendant Nos. 18 and 19. He also submitted that the plaintiff is continuously in possession of the suit properties. Kalyan Singh was only a guardian of the plaintiff. He would also submit that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court has erred in considering that the plaintiff has not approached the revenue authorities for correction of his name in the revenue records between the years 1960 to 2000. Since the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land, there was no occasion for him to approach the revenue authorities, and even otherwise, the revenue entries do not give any title to the defendants No. 1 to 16. He would also submits that the learned courts below have not considered the evidence of the DW-1 Dilman Singh, who is one of the defendant, and has deposed that the property of village Nahan Chandi have not given in share to Manohar yet the properties of village Nahan Chandi have been recorded in the names of the defendants and there is no source of title of the defendants over the suit property, yet they have sold the suit property to defendant Nos. 18 and 19 and the learned Courts below have held the said transaction is bona fide transaction, which is illegal and give rise to substantial question of law for admission of appeal.

¶52

10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the trial Court.

¶53

11. A careful perusal of the plaint would show that the plaintiff has pleaded that the suit properties were obtained by his father Maniram in partition with

¶54

8

¶55

Manohar vide registered partition deed dated 17.11.1954. Thereafter, in the year 1959, the property obtained by his father Maniram in the partition, again partitioned between two sons of Maniram, i.e. plaintiff and his brother Loor Singh, and the suit property came in the share of the plaintiff by the registered partition deed dated 08.04.1959. From perusal of the document Ex.P/1 which is the registered partition deed dated 17.11.1954, it reveals that the father of the plaintiff namely Maniram has obtained the land Khasra No. 6 area 82.89 acres, piece of Khasra No. 12 area 5.37 acres, piece of Khasra No. 62/2 area 0.80 acres, piece of Khasra No. 120 area 6.49 acres, piece of Khasra No. 159/2 area 0.40 acres, piece of Khasra No. 171/3 area 0.26 acres, piece of Khasra No. 312 area 0.21 acres, piece of Khasra No. 315 area 5.00 acres, piece of Khasra No. 318 area 40.88 acres, piece of Khasra No. 320 area 0.46 acres, piece of Khasra No. 322 area 5.90 acres, piece of Khasra No. 325 area 25.68 acres, piece of Khasra No. 330/6 area 15.60 acres and piece of Khasra No. 332 area 6.07 acres, total area 196.01 acres in his share. This partition was done in the year 1954, and thereafter, the father of the plaintiff died, and the property of Maniram was inherited by the plaintiff Phool Singh and his brother Loor Singh. In the year 1959, when the brother of the plaintiff, namely Loor Singh, was unable to protect the interest of the plaintiff, the property of their father was partitioned on 08.04.1959 by a registered partition deed Ex.P/2. In this partition deed Ex.P/2, the details of the properties which has been obtained by Loor Singh and Phool Singh has been mentioned and according to which, the plaintiff has obtained the land of Khara No. 318/1 area 4.88 acres, 318/8 area 36.00 acres, 325 area 7.68 acres, 350/6 area 15.60 acres and 332 area 6.07 acres, total area 70.23 acres. The brother of the plaintiff has obtained the land of Khara No. 6/1 area 38.89 acres, 12/1 area 5.37 acres, 120/1 area 6.49 acres and 325 area 18.00 acres, total 69.75 acres. It is also mentioned in the said partition deed that they obtained the properties in partition on 16.11.1954, and it was managed

¶56

9

¶57

by Loor Singh as the guardian of the plaintiff, and they have an 11^th share of each of them. However, Loor Singh is misusing the property and most of the property he has already sold out of the joint property; therefore, to protect the interests of the plaintiff and his brother, this partition deed was executed. Since the plaintiff was minor at that time and his brother Loor Singh was acting against the interest of the plaintiff, his cousin brother Kalyan Singh was made as guardian of the plaintiff. It has also been mentioned that, except for the property shown in this partition deed, they have no right or title over any other properties.

¶58

12. From perusal of the re-numbering list of the lands Ex.P/7, it further transpires that the land of Khasra No.312 was re-numbered as 760, Khasra No. 315/1 was re-numbered as 806, Khasra No. 322/1 was re-numbered as 815, Khasra No. 320 was re-numbered 817 and Khasra No. 156/2 was renumbered as 826. But these are the properties which have not been shown in the partition deed dated 08.04.1959, which was executed between the plaintiff and his brother Loor Singh.

¶59

13. At the time of execution of this partition deed dated 08.04.1959, the plaintiff was a minor and aged about 14 years. It is specifically mentioned in this

¶60

registered partition deed that “हम �� म� �� अप�� ह�� म� प�� gq,

¶61

�� अ�� र �� पर �� तरह �� ह� �� ह� रह�” . The said partition deed has not been challenged by the plaintiff even after obtaining the majority, and the property sold to the defendants Nos. 18 and 19 is not shown in the said partition deed. It is for the plaintiff to prove that the remaining property which was obtained by his father Maniram, was inherited by him and not by any other member of the family. His brother Loor Singh has not been made a party in the suit either by the plaintiff or the defendant. Both the learned courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was the owner and title holder of the property. While

¶62

10

¶63

deciding the issue no. 4, the learned courts below have also rightly held that the defendant Nos. 18 and 19 are the bona fide purchasers of the subject property. They have also considered the documents Ex.D/19, which is the record of right of the year 1996-1997, which was in the name of the defendants, Ex.D/17 order dated 30.04.1959, passed by Tahsildar Raipur in revenue case no. 1/110 of 58-59, village Nahna Chandi. The document Ex.D/8 and Ex.D/9 which are the application for correction of the revenue records filed by the defendant before the Tahsildar Raipur, Ex.D/1 which are the Sanshodhan Panji of the year 1957 to 1962 of village Nahna Chandi, Ex.D/2 Kishtbandi Khatauni, Ex.D/3 Khasra Panshala, Ex.D/4 Kishtbandi Khatauni, Ex.D/6 Khasra Panshala, Ex.D/7 to Ex.D/17 which are the documents which relates to the proceeding of revenue case no. 1/110/58-59 village Nahna Chandi, initiated before the Tahsildar Raipur on 19.02.1959. The learned trial Court has also considered that the defendant Nos. 18 and 19 have verified the documents before their purchase from defendant nos. 1 to 16, and after considering their title and possession over the suit property, they have purchased and got their name mutated in the revenue records. Since the plaintiff could not prove his title over the suit property, and it was recorded in the name of the defendants No. 1 to 16 in the revenue records, the defendant No. and 18 and 19 were the bona fide purchasers of the suit property, and the plaintiff is not entitled to declare their sale deed as null and void. The finding recorded by the learned courts below does not suffer from any perversity or misappropriation of evidence.

¶64

14. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his right and title and possession over the suit properties by producing sufficient documentary as well as oral evidence as required under the law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishwanath Agrawal S/o Sitaram Agrawal vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal 2012 (7) SCC 288 has held that the High Court should not disturb the concurrent finding of fact

¶65

11

¶66

unless the finding recorded is perverse, being based on no evidence. In Para

¶67

36 and 37, it has been held that:

¶68

“ 36. In Major Singh v. Rattan Singh (1997) 3 SCC 546: AIR 1997 SC 1906) it has been observed that when the courts below had rejected and disbelieved the evidence on unacceptable d grounds, it is the duty of the High Court to consider whether the reasons given by the courts below are sustainable in law while hearing an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶69

37. In Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao(1999) 3 SCC 573, it has been ruled that the High Court in a second appeal should not disturb the concurrent findings of fact unless it is shown that the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse being based on no evidence or that on the evidence on record no reasonable person could have come to that conclusion. We may note here that solely because another view is possible on the basis of the evidence, the High Court would not be entitled to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This view of ours has been fortified by the decision of this Court in Abdul Raheem v. Karnataka Electricity Board18.

¶70

15. Accordingly, this Court do not find any substantial question of law involved in

¶71

the case for its determination, therefore, the second appeal is liable to be and

¶72

is hereby dismissed .

¶73

16. Parties shall bear their own cost.

¶74

Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶75

Alok

Phool Singh Sonwani v. Diman Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phool Singh Sonwani v. Diman Singh

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

Mahadev And Ors. Vs Sonau Ram And Ors.

Krishna Kumar @ Usha Pratap Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narayan Prakash Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Isdor Vs Telesphor and Anr.

Pardeshi Vs Chimta Buchamma

Tija Bai Vs Pandit Ram