Anand Bai Vs Umend

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:7519

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

SA No. 95 of 2020

¶6

Anand Bai Wd/o Fatte Satnami Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Gidhwa, Post Kunra, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - Umend S/o Munwa Satnami Aged About 31 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Gidhwa, Post Kunra, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kanchan Bai W/o Munwa Aged About 53 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Gidhwa, Post Kunra, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

(Cause title, as taken from Case Information System)

¶11

For Appellant

¶12

: Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate

¶13

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

Judgment On Board

12/02/2025

1 Heard.

2 This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (CG) in Civil Appeal No.17A/2019 upholding the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2019 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Bemetara, District Bemetara (CG) in Civil Suit No.69A/2017, whereby learned trial Court

¶18

2

¶19

has dismissed the civil suit filed by appellant/plaintiff for possession and permanent injunction of the disputed land.

¶20

(The parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status in the suit before the trial Court.)

¶21

3 Appellant/ plaintiff filed civil suit for possession and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants stating inter alia that she is in possession of 2 ½ dismil (henceforth referred as “disputed land”) of the government land bearing Khasra No. 466 situated at Village Gidhwa, P.H. No.27, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara (CG) since her ancestors by constructing house on it, which has been shown in Schedule- “A” annexed with the plaint. She further pleaded that in “Abadi Sarvekshan” held in the year 2008 & 2012, that house was numbered as 145 & 123 respectively. One year prior to filing aforesaid civil suit, defendants have ousted plaintiff from the said disputed land and they have also constructed house on it by encircling the disputed land. Despite complaint made by plaintiff to the police, they did not take any action against defendants, therefore, plaintiff filed civil suit against the defendants seeking possession of the disputed land and permanent injunction against defendants.

¶22

4 Respondents / defendants remained ex parte before the trial Court and even they did not file their written statement.

¶23

5 Learned trial Court framed three issues and after recording evidence adduced by plaintiff, considered the same and vide impugned judgment and decree, dismissed civil suit filed by plaintiff on the ground that plaintiff has failed to prove her case and even she has not filed any document to prove her right or possession over the disputed land. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred first appeal before the

¶24

3

¶25

Additional District Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara, which was also dismissed by First Appellate Court, hence, this appeal.

¶26

6 Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that plaintiff was in possession over the disputed land since her ancestors by constructing house over it. During their possession, at the time of “Abadi Sarvekshan” in the year 2008 & 2012, said house was numbered as ‘145’ and subsequently renumbered as ‘123’ in the name of plaintiff. He would further submit that, to prove her possession, plaintiff has filed Revenue Map (Ex. P-1) and photocopy of the house number of the disputed house constructed by appellant/ plaintiff, despite that, learned trial Court has dismissed the civil suit filed by plaintiff and without any due consideration, the Appellate Court has upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, which is perverse and illegal, therefore, this appeal may be admitted for hearing.

¶27

7 When specific question was posed to learned counsel for the appellant / plaintiff that whether plaintiff has filed any valid document to prove her possession or possession of her ancestors over the disputed land, then he submitted that no such document has been filed. Documents filed by plaintiff are neither certified copy of Revenue Map (Ex. P-1), Kishtbandi Khatoni and Khasra Paanchshala nor original copy thereof. Alleged documents showing house number are the photocopy, and even, it has not been exhibited by plaintiff on the record, thus, there is no any valid document to prove her possession or possession of her ancestors over the disputed land. Documents filed by plaintiff are invalid documents, based on which, their possession cannot be determined.

¶28

8 Undisputedly, the disputed land is a government land and as per the claim of appellant / plaintiff, she was in possession since her ancestors,

¶29

4

¶30

but to prove these facts, she has not filed any valid document/evidence, therefore, the finding recorded by the Trial Court and upheld by the First Appellate Court that plaintiff has utterly failed to prove her case, is found to be just and proper, as such, no question of law is found to be framed in this second appeal, hence, the second appeal is dismissed at motion stage.

¶31

9 Records of both the Courts below be returned along with a copy

¶32

of this judgment.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶35

Rukhsar

¶36

RUKHSAR Digitallysigned byRUKHSARBANO BANO Date:2025.02.1317:07:05+0530