Dismissed

Kishan Agrawal v. Ramesh Sharma

Chhattisgarh HC27 Jan 2025WP227/79/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the High Court of Chhattisgarh refused to interfere with an appellate order setting aside a temporary injunction. The court found the appeal disposed based on revenue records showing the respondents were the true title holders.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the impugned order dismissing the appeal is dismissed with no cost.

Kishan Agrawal Vs Ramesh Sharma — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:4859

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 79 of 2025

¶6

1 - Kishan Agrawal S/o Late Visheshwar Agrawal Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Jarhagarh Nagar Ambikapur P.S. Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.). 2 - Mukesh Agrawal S/o Late Visheshwar Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Jarhagarh Nagar Ambikapur P.S. Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.). 3 - Raju Agrawal S/o Late Visheshwar Agrawal Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Jarhagarh Nagar Ambikapur P.S. Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.). 4 - Shanti Devi D/o Late Visheshwar Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o Shantinagar Kasabel, Tehsil Bagich District Jashpur (C.G.). 5 - Pista Agrawal D/o Late Visheshwar Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o Mayaypur (Kaupidand) Nagar Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.). 6 - Ratan Jain D/o Late Visheshwar Agrawal Aged About 44 Years - R/o Rohini Sector 16, E-5, New Delhi. 7 - Rupa Goyal D/o Late Visheshwar Agrawal Aged About 38 Years R/o Mohalla Aliganj District Banda (Uttarpradesh).

¶7

... Petitioner(s) / plaintiffs

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Ramesh Sharma S/o Ramsharan Aged About 51 Years R/o Ambikapur Road Pathalgaon Tehsil Pathalgaon District Jashpur (C.G.).

¶10

2 - Vishwanath Sharma S/o Ramdhari Sharma Aged About 58 Years R/o Ambikapur Road Pathalgaon Tehsil Pathalgaon District Jashpur (C.G.).

¶11

3 - Ravi Agrawal S/o Umesh Agrawal Aged About 28 Years R/o Chidrapara Pathalgaon Tehsil Pathalgaon District Jashpur (C.G.). 4 - Hem Raaj Yadav Halka Patwari Pathalgaon, Through Tahsildar Pathalgaon District Jashpur (C.G.). 5 - State Of C.G. Through Collector, District Jashpur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Petitioner(s):	Mr. Nishikant Sinha,Advocate
For Respondent :	Mr. A. N. Bhakta, Advocate with Mr. Vivek
No.1	Bhakta, Advocate
For State :	Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal,Panel Lawyer

¶13

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

28/01/2025

¶17

1. The petitioners/plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 12.12.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2/2023, by the District Judge, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, whereby the appeal preferred by defendants No. 1 to 4 was allowed and the order passed by the learned trial Court was set aside.

¶18

2. The brief facts of the present case are as under:-

¶19

A. The plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and also challenged the registered sale deed dated 14.07.2022, inter-alia, on the ground that the plaintiffs inherited the suit property bearing survey No. 323/2, 330/2, admeasuring 0.012, 0.08 hectares situated at village Pathhalgaon, District Jashpur from their father namely, late Visheshwar Singh.

¶20

B. Late Vishweshwar Singh died on 14.11.1998 and thereafter, the name of his wife/mother of the plaintiffs alone was entered into revenue records.

¶21

C. It is stated that defendant No.3 taking advantage of poor health and old age, got registered a sale deed in his favour on 14.07.2022. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC was also filed.

¶22

D. The defendants filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. They stated that the late Surajo Bai was the title holder and the suit property was her self-acquired property. Therefore, she has the right to execute a sale deed.

¶23

E. The defendants also filed a reply to the application for temporary injunction.

¶24

F. The learned trial Court vide order dated 28.03.2023 allowed the application for temporary injunction.

¶25

G. Defendants No. 1 to 4 preferred a miscellaneous appeal.

¶26

¶27

H. The learned court below allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court.

¶28

I. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed this petition against the order dated 12.12.2024

¶29

3. Mr. Nishikant Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are in favour of the plaintiffs. He would argue that if the defendants alienate the suit property, there would be a multiplicity of the proceedings and would cause great hardship to the petitioners. He would further contend that the suit property is ancestral property and the parties have equal rights over the suit Property. He would also contend that the learned Court below committed an error of law in reversing the findings recorded by the trial Court while granting the order of temporary injunction. He would argue that though the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of the Property Act would apply, but the plaintiffs would be compelled to implead subsequent purchases as the defendants. He would further argue that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property. He would pray that the order passed by the learned Court below may be set aside.

¶30

4. On the other hand, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and submit that the order was passed by the learned Court below after considering the material available on record and the Court below was absolutely justified in passing the order impugned which does not require interference of this Court.

¶31

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶32

6. In the present case, the learned appellate Court recorded a finding that initially, the suit property was recorded in the name of aboriginal tribes. A proceeding under Section 170-B of the CGLRC was initiated against the late Visheshwar Agarwal. Late Vishweshwar Agarwal was directed to make payment of the

¶33

¶34

difference amount to the aboriginal tribes; notice was issued to late Visheshwar Agrawal to deposit the difference amount to the tune of Rs.660/-; on account of the death of the late Visheshwar Agrawal, a registered sale deed was executed in favour of Surajo Bai, wife of Late Visheshwar Agrawal. It is also observed by the learned Court below that as the suit property was purchased by late Surjo Bai; later on, the same was sold through a registered sale, therefore, it cannot be presumed that she had no right to alienate the property. It is also held by the learned Court below on the basis of revenue documents that the late Visheshwar Agarwal was never recorded as the owner and possession holder of the suit property.

¶35

7. In the revenue records of 2017-18, the name of Surajo Bai is entered as Bhoomi Swami. Further, the Court below recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have challenged the execution of the sale deed and the findings in this regard can be recorded after evidence.

¶36

8. The learned Court below also recorded a finding that the plaintiffs could not establish their possession over the suit property; thus, dismissed the appeal.

¶37

9. The findings recorded by the learned Court below are based on the materials available on record and such findings do not require interference while exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No cost(s).

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE

¶40

Nadim

Kishan Agrawal v. Ramesh Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Agrawal v. Ramesh Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pronov Kumar Roy Vs Jawahar Lal Gupta (J. L. Gupta)

Pankaj Shrivastav Vs Smt. Chandramani Devi Kushwaha

Ramvishal Sonkar Vs Mrs. Santoshi Bai Sonkar

Panna Lal Vs Rajendra Agrawal

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Vs Jyoti Mani Benn

Padmini (now dead) through LRs Vs Shobha Ram (now dead) Through Legal Heirs