Chhedi Lal Chauhan Vs Tularam and Ors.

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:12962

¶3

Digitally signed by AVINASH AVINASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.21 10:28:31 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

SA No. 58 of 2015

¶7

Chhedi Lal Chauhan S/o Late Bhuvan Singh Chauhan Aged About 53 Years R/o Village- Surajpura, Tah. And P.O. Pandariya, P.S. Pandariya, Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G.

¶8

... Appellant/plaintiff

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Tularam S/o Late Bhuvan Singh Chauhan Aged About 68 Years R/o VillageSurajpura, Tah. And P.O. Pandariya, P.S. Pandariya, Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G.

¶11

2 - Kaval Singh S/o Late Bhuvan Singh Chauhan Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Surajpura, Tah. And P.O. Pandariya, P.S. Pandariya, Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G.

¶12

3 - Kaveri Bai S/o Late Bhuvan Singh Aged About 54 Years W/o Ram Bharosa, Gandhi Ward Mungeli, P.O. And P.S. Mungeli, Distt. Mungeli C.G.

¶13

4 - Dashrath Singh Chauhan S/o Bipat Singh Chauhan Aged About 61 Years R/o Ranbord, P.O. Ghoghra, P.S. Navagarh, Distt. Bemetara C.G.

¶14

5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Thru- Collector, Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G.

¶15

... Respondent(s)/Defendants

¶16

2

¶17

For Appellant	: Shri Chandra Bhushan Kesharwani, Advocate.
For State	: Shri SK Puria, Panel Lawyer.

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶19

Judgment on Board

¶20

19/03/2025

¶21

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Kabirdham (Kawardha) (Chhattisgarh) in Civil Appeal No.16-A/2014, which in turn, arose out of the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2012 passed by the Civil Judge Class-2, Pandariya District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) in Civil Suit No.6-A/2011.

¶22

By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff and afÏrmed the findings arrived at by the trial Court, whereby the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant.

¶23

Brief facts of the case are that appellant/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title, partition and separate possession of the suit land (shown in Annexure A/3 filed with the appeal), by making averment inter alia , that the subject land was allotted to forefathers of the parties namely Kanhaiya, who was a Kotwar during the State time. The subject land is a service land and the name of Kanhaiya has also been recorded in Jamabandi pertaining to the year 1927-28 (Ex.P/1). It has been further averred that Kanhaiya was in continuous possession, therefore, he became occupancy tenant and therefore, the plaintiff is also entitled for 1/5th share in the suit land. Plaintiff has mentioned the family tree as below:-

¶24

3

¶25

Kanhaiyya(dead)

¶26

Bhuvan Singh(son/dead) Kunjan Bai (daughter/Defendant No.4/dead)

¶27

Tularam (son/DefendantNo1) Cheddilal(son/plaintiff) Kaval(son/DefendantNo.2) Kaveribai(daughter/Defendant No.3)

¶28

It has been further pleaded that Respondent No.2-Kaval Singh was appointed as a Kotwar who forcefully took possession of the disputed land. Hence, present suit has been filed.

¶29

In the written statement filed by LRs of Bhuvan Singh viz Respondent No.1 to 3 herein, averments made in the plaint have been denied and it is stated that after the death of Bhuvan Singh in 1994, Respondent No.2Kaval Singh was appointed as Kotwar, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim partition on the subject land and prayer to dismiss the suit was made.

¶30

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed as many as 4 issues and after evaluating the evidence available on record dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff which was afÏrmed by the First Appellate Court. Hence this Second Appeal.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence in their proper perspective. He further submits that Kanhaiya being a occupancy tenant became Bhumiswami of the subject land and the subject property is ancestral property of the plaintiff, therefore, he is entitled for the share. Considering the backdrop, this appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below may be set aside.

¶32

It is an admitted case of the plaintiff himself that the subject land was

¶33

4

¶34

allotted to Kanhaiya, who was village servant during the State time, as a service land and the plaintiff has not filed and proved that the subject land is ancestral land. Both the Courts below recorded a concurrent finding that Bhuvan Singh worked as a Kotwar, therefore, the subject land was allotted to him and after his death, his another son viz Defendant No.2-Kaval Singh became Kotwar. Hence, in view of Section 183 of The Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (henceforth “the Code, 1959”) the subject land was transferred to the person holding the post of Kotwar. For the sake of brevity, the said Section reads as under:-

¶35

183. Service land.- (1) Any person holding land on the condition of rendering service as village servant shall cease to be entitled to such land if he diverts such land to non-agricultural purposes.

¶36

(2) A transaction by which a village servant attempts to transfer his interest in his services land by sale, gift, mortgage, sub-lease or otherwise except by a sub-lease for a period not exceeding one year, shall be void.

¶37

(3) If the holder of such land dies, resigns or is lawfully dismissed the land shall pass to his successor in ofÏce.

¶38

(4) The right of the holder in such land shall not be attached or sold in execution of a decree nor shall a receiver be appointed to manage such land under Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908).

¶39

On reading of Section 183 (3) of the Code, 1959, it is explicit that if the holder of the service land dies, resigns or is lawfully dismissed the land shall pass to his successor in ofÏce.

¶40

In view of the aforesaid legal provision, plaintiff has no right on the subject land to seek partition. Even otherwise, plaintiff Chhedilal (PW-1) in para 18 of his statement and Kejha Ram (PW-2) further admitted the fact that partition of the ancestral land had already taken place and some

¶41

5

¶42

of the members have sold their share also. Only the plaintiff is claiming that the subject property is ancestral property, however, other members of the family never claimed or raised any dispute in this regard.

¶43

11.For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that both the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and there is no illegality or perversity in the same which would call for any interference.

¶44