Dismissed¶34

Smt. Bindiya Bai v. Satyanarayan

Chhattisgarh HC5 Jan 2026MA/253/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CGHC Bilaspur — MA No. 253 of 2025 — 06/01/2026 — Bibhu Datta Guru, J. — motion-stage dismissal of appeal against remand order in Civil Appeal No. 42A/2025 arising from Civil Suit No. 58A/2021 (khasra 1210/2, 0.243 hect., mouza Barda); provisions: Order 43 Rule 1(u) CPC, Section 96 CPC; vendors' possession/title and 10/01/1992 partition directed to be re-examined; no case law discussed.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal was dismissed at the motion stage, leaving the First Appellate Court's remand direction intact. ¶34

Smt. Bindiya Bai Vs Satyanarayan — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal was dismissed at the motion stage, leaving the First Appellate Court's remand direction intact.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgment dated 31.10.2025 of the First Appellate Court remanding Civil Suit No. 58A/2021 to the trial court was free from illegality or irregularity, so that the defendants' appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) CPC deserved to fail. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

The order passed by the First Appellate Court is just and proper; the defendants (appellants herein) failed to establish any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The First Appellate Court rightly remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the issue afresh, examining how the sellers Nona Bai and Pillai Bai came into possession and got title (the trial court having placed no cogent evidence on the alleged partition of 10/01/1992) and directing it to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶33

Key takeaways

The instant appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur — MA No. 253 of 2025 (decided 06/01/2026, Bibhu Datta Guru, J.). Defendants' appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) CPC challenged the First Appellate Court's judgment dated 31.10.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 42A/2025, which had allowed the plaintiffs' Section 96 CPC appeal from the dismissal (judgment/decree dated 25.07.2025, Second Civil Judge Senior Division, Baloda Bazar, Civil Suit No. 58A/2021) of their suit for declaration and injunction over khasra No. 1210/2 measuring 0.243 hect. in mouza Barda P.H. No. 28, Tahsil Baloda Bazar, and had remanded the suit to the trial court for fresh decision. The remand rested on the trial court's failure to examine how the vendors, Nona Bai and Pillai Bai, acquired possession and title, and the absence of cogent evidence of the alleged partition of 10/01/1992. Holding the remand order just and proper and finding no illegality or irregularity established by the defendants, the High Court dismissed the appeal at the motion stage. No precedent was cited or considered. The appellants were the original defendants; respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were the original plaintiffs. The Rs. 2,000/- sale consideration of 04.05.1981 featured only as pleaded defence background, not as any ordered amount.

¶1

¶2

2026:CGHC:534

¶3

Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 10:16:24 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

MA No. 253 of 2025

¶7

1. Smt. Bindiya Bai W/o Late Balaram Baghel Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Barada, Tahsil And District Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G.

¶8

2. Sachin S/o Late Balaram Baghel Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Barada, Tahsil And District Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G.

¶9

3. Minor Dhaneshwari D/o Late Balaram Baghel Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Their Mother Bindiya Bai Wd/o Late Balaram Baghel, R/o Village Barada, Tahsil And District Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G.

¶10

4. Minor Kalyani D/o Late Balaram Baghel Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Their Mother Bindiya Bai Wd/o Late Balaram Baghel, R/o Village Barada, Tahsil And District Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G.

¶11

5. Sheetal S/o Sahasram Satnami Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Barada, Tahsil And District Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G.

¶12

6. Rajkumari D/o Sahasram Satnami Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Dharashiv Tahsil Lawan District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara C.G.

¶13

... Appellant(s)

¶14

versus

¶15

1. Satyanarayan S/o Late Rupau Satnami Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Barada, Tahsil And District Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G.

¶16

2. Ramkuwar Wd/o Late Rupau Satnami Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Barada, Tahsil And District Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G.

¶17

3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. ... Respondent(s)

¶18

¶19

For Appellant (s) :	Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate
For State/ Respondent(s) :	Mr. Ritesh Giri, P.L.

¶20

No. 3

¶21

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board

06/01/2026

Heard.

By the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (u) of the CPC the appellant/ defendants are challenging the impugned judgment dated 31.10.2025 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Baloda Bazar in Civil Appeal No. 42A/2025 (Satyanarayan & Anr. Vs. Smt. Bindiya Bai and Ors.) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned Second Civil Judge Senior Division, Baloda Bazar in Civil suit No. 58A/2021 (Satyanarayan & Anr. Vs. Sukhbai (dead) through LRs Smt. Bindiya Bai and Ors.). For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred as per their status before the trial court.

¶26

The plaintiff preferred the suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the land bearing khasra No. 1210/2 measuring 0.243 hect. situated in mouza Barda P.H. No. 28 Tahsil Baloda Bazar pleading, inter alia, that the suit land was occupied by Rupau who is the father of the plaintiff No. 1 and husband of plaintiff No. 2. After death of Rupau the names of the plaintiffs were registered in respect of the suit land. When the plaintiff approached the revenue authority for form B1 they came to know that their names

¶27

¶28

were not entered in respect of the suit land. After due enquiry they came to know that the suit land has been registered in name of defendant Sukhbai. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land was registered in the name of defendant by hatching conspiracy.

¶29

The defendants submitted their written statement and denied the plaintiffs averments. They stated that the suit land was purchased from Nona Bai and Pillai Bai through a registered sale deed for sale consideration of Rs. 2,000/- by the maternal grandfather of the defendants and since then the suit land was in their possession. The defendants also stated that the said suit land was registered in the name of Dhanya and after death of Dhanya the same was recorded in the name of Nona Bai and Pilli Bai. After sale deed dated 04.05.1981 Baiju was occupant of the land and after his death the suit land was registered in the name of Sukh Bai and Jug Bai (Original defendant). According to the defendants proper court fees has not been paid by the plaintiffs and as such they are not entitled for any relief.

¶30

After hearing the parties and on consideration of the facts available on record and other materials the learned Trial court dismissed the suit. Against the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court the plaintiff preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC before the learned First appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court by the order impugned allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and remanded back the matter to the learned Trial Court for deciding the issue afresh.

¶31

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders.

¶33

From bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned First Appellate Court, it appears that the First Appellate Court has remanded back the suit to the trial Court observing that under what basis the seller of the property namely; Nona Bai and Pillai Bai have got possession of land bearing Khasra No. 1210/2 area 0.243 Hectares has not been examined by the trial Court. It is further reflected from the judgment of the trial Court that the partition took place on 10/01/1992 but to prove the said partition, no cogent evidence was placed and for the said reasons as the fact regarding how the seller Nona Bai and Pillai Bai came into possession and got title has not been examined by scrutinizing the evidence available on record. The learned First Appellate Court has rightly remanded back the matter for deciding the issue afresh to examine the aforesaid fact and directed the trial Court to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The order passed by the learned First Appellate Court is just and proper and the defendant failed to establish any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned.

¶34

In view of the above, the instant appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.

¶35

Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE

¶36

Jyoti

Smt. Bindiya Bai v. Satyanarayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bindiya Bai v. Satyanarayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sohan Singh Vs Rajesh Singh

Raj Bijju Tyagrajan Vs Kailash Sonwani

Rakesh Kumar Soni Vs Smt. Pushpa Verma

Mohar Sai Vs Smt. Sundari Bai

Mohammad Mumtajuddin Vs Smt. Savitri Masih

Shriram Yadav Vs Jairam Yadav