Yudhistir Kumar Sahu Vs Manoj Kumar

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:7619

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

SHOAIB Digitallysigned bySHOAIBANWAR
ANWAR Date:2026.02.1217:01:01+0530

¶6

SA No. 188 of 2021

¶7

1 - Yudhistir Kumar Sahu S/o Shankar Lal Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Bhoghapara, Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Shivrinarayan (In The Judgment Impuned Mentioned As Up-Tahsil Shivrinarayan, Tahsil - Nawagarh As It Than Was) District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Yajuvendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shankar Lal Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Bhoghapara, Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Shivrinarayan (In The Judgment Impuned Mentioned As Up-Tahsil Shivrinarayan, Tahsil - Nawagarh As It Than Was) District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Manoj Kumar S/o Shankar Lal Agarwal Aged About 44 Years R/o Shivrinarayan, At Present R/o Near Bus Stand Urga, Korba, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Praveen Kumar S/o Shiv-Ratri Prasad Kesharwani Aged About 49

¶13

2

¶14

Years R/o Shivarinarayan, Tahsil- Shivarinarayan, (In The Judgement Impugned Mentioned As Up-Tahsil Shivrinarayan Tahsil - Nawagarh, As It Than Was) District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

3 - Government Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District - JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

(Cause title taken from CIS)

¶18

For Appellants : Shri Aadarsh Rajput, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate

¶19

For Respondent No. 2 : Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Malay Jain, Panel lawyer

¶20

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

11/02/2026

¶23

1. Heard on I.A. No. 03/2025, an application ;led under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶24

2. By the appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellants/plainti>s challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 28/08/2019 passed by the learned District Judge,

¶25

Janjgir-Champa C.G. in Civil Appeal No.60A/2018 (Praveen Kumar v. Yudhisthir Kumar Sahu and Others) arising out of the judgment dated 30.04.2018 passed by the learned Second Civil Judge Class-I Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. in Civil

¶26

3

¶27

Suit No.09A/2018 (Yudhisthir Kumar Sahu & Another vs. Manoj Kumar and Others). For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

¶28

3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that respondent No. 1 is a formal party in the present appeal. It is further submitted that the appellants and respondent No. 2, who are the main contesting parties, have amicably settled their dispute and have executed a compromise deed. A copy of the said compromise deed has been annexed to the application ;led under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶29

4. For the sake of convenience deed of compromise dated 06.09.2025 is reproduced as under:-

¶30

Deed of compromise

¶31

The appellant No. 1. Yudhisthir Kumar Sahu, aged about 48 years, Appellant no. 2 Yujvendra Kumar Sahu, aged about 41 years, both S/o Late Shankar Lal Sahu and Permanent R/o Bhoghapara, Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Shivrinarayan, District : Janjgir Champa, CG and respondent no. 2 Praveen Kumar, aged about 53 years, S/o Late Shivratri Prasad Kesharwani R/o

¶32

4

¶33

Shivrinarayan, Tahsil Shivrinarayan, District: Janjgir -

¶34

Champa, CG, do here by enter into this agreement for compromise:

¶35

HISTORY OF CASE

¶36

That the appellant and respondent no. 2 have a civil dispute going on over the possession of Kh. No.

¶37

678/2, 678/8 of Village: Shivrinarayan Tehsil: Shivrinarayan, Distt: Janjgir-Champa (CG.) old Khasra No. of which is 678/1 and over the purchase and possession of part of Kh. No. 678/1 by the respondent no.2. The appellants are plainti>s who have ;led the suit for declaration and injunction and also for declaring the sale deed dated 06/11/2007 ine>ective and not binding. The Suit was allowed but in appeal it was dismissed.

¶38

That the Kh. No. 678/8 were purchased by appellants via registered sale deed in the year 1980 from one Sant Ram Kahara and Kh. No. 678/2 was purchased from one Shankar Lal Agarwal S/o Phul Chand Agarwal via sale deed dated 21/11/1997. The Respondent no. 2 purchased part of Kh. No. 678/1

¶39

5

¶40

Village:- Shivrinarayan from Manoj Agarwal S/o Shankar Lal Agarwal via registered sale deed dated 06/11/2007. The part of Kh. No. 678/1 purchased by respondent no. 2 was renumbered as Kh. No. 678/12.

¶41

REASON FOR COMPROMISE

¶42

That the appellants have entered into a family arrangement cum partition with their cousin brothers eventually according to which rights and title

¶43

over part of Kh. No. 678/2 and Kh. No. 678/8 were given to Amar Sahu S/o Mote Lal Sahu and also over the part of Kh. No. 678/1 (which was numbered as Kh. No. 678/12) claimed by respondent no.2. So after successive family arrangements now Amar Sahu is also having right and title over the part of Kh. No. 678/8// and 678/2.

¶44

That the appellants after family arrangement do not want to pursue the case and respondent no.2 has amicably settled the case with them and has also settled the case with Amar Sahu S/o Mote Lal Sahu.

¶45

That the respondent no.1 Manoj Kumar S/o Shankar Lal Agarwal has remained ex-parte

¶46

6

¶47

throughout the suit, civil appeal and has not entered his appearance in the instant Second Appeal also. Even otherwise the respondent no.2 was the contesting party.

¶48

TERMS OF COMPROMISE

¶49

It is agreed that respondent no.2 never had any claim over part of Kh. No. 678/8 over which appellants have title, right and possession and peaceful possession over it by appellants and their successors will not be disturbed by the respondent no.2 and in future no challenge will be made regarding the possession of appellants and their successors.

¶50

It is agreed that claim of respondent no. 2 over the part of Kh. No. 678/1 (renumbered as Kh. No. 678/12), purchased via registered sale deed dated 06/11/2007

¶51

from Manoj Kumar S/o Shankar Lal Agarwal and during demarcation of which present dispute arose, is recognized for respondent no.2 and his successors.

¶52

It is agreed that Amar Sahu S/o Mote Lal Sahu will receive total twenty two lakhs rupees (22,00,000/-) from respondent no. 2 out of which Ten Lakh Fifty

¶53

7

¶54

Thousand Rupees (10,50,000/-) is paid in cash and remaining Eleven Lakh Fifty Thousand Rupees is paid in three cheques issued from the account of Smt. Manjula Kesharwani W/o Praveen Kesharwani of Bandhan Bank, Branch Shivrinarayan, bearing no. 000008 of Four Lakhs Rupees (4,00,000/-), bearing no. 000009 of Four Lakhs Rupees (4,00,000/-) and cheque no. 000010 for Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand Rupees only (3,50,000/-), for the reason that he has inherited the part of suit lands as mentioned in preceding paragraph no. 3 and in lieu of such money received Amar Sahu S/o Mote Lal Sahu relinquishes his interest, right and any claim over the part Kh. No. 678/2 which he received in partition and further he will not claim any right over Kh. No. 678/12 and undertakes to not to disturb the possession of respondent no.2 over Kh. No. 678/12.

¶55

5. I have heard both the parties and perused the settlement deed annexed with application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of C.P.C.

¶56

6. The disputes between the parties have been amicably settled

¶57

8

¶58

by execution of a compromise deed. The said compromise deed shall form part of the record. In view of the aforesaid settlement, I.A. No. 03/2025, an application under Order XXIII

¶59

Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is disposed of. Consequently, the present appeal is also disposed of in terms of the compromise deed dated 06.07.2025. The compromise

¶60

deed shall form part of this judgment.

¶61

7. A decree be drawn accordingly.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶64

Shoaib

Yudhistir Kumar Sahu v. Manoj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yudhistir Kumar Sahu v. Manoj Kumar

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

Saras Kumar Chandrakar Vs Smt. Rajeshwari

Kailash @ Duliram Vs Tarachand Gupta

Rajendra Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhagat Ram Vs Heera Lal

Smt. Savitri Vs Chamru

Bhanwar Lal Soni Vs Chaitram Dhankar