Manager, D.B. Power Limited Vs Jagdish Prasad Aghariya

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:6189

¶3

Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTISHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.06 11:23:16 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

SA No. 590 of 2024

¶7

Manager, D.B. Power Limited Bada Dahra, Tahsil - Dabhara, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. --- (Defendant No. 5)

¶8

... Appellant(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1. Jagdish Prasad Aghariya S/o Rooplal Aged About 59 Years R/o Badadahra, Tahsil- Dabhara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2. Salikram Aghariya, S/o Dayaram Aged About 50 Years R/o Badadahra, Tahsil- Dabhara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3. Haradhar Aghariya S/o Dayaram Aged About 59 Years R/o Badadahra, Tahsil- Dabhara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4. Tohar Ram Aghariya, S/o Kartikram Aged About 75 Years R/o Badadahra, Tahsil- Dabhara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

5. Ghasneen, W/o Late Shri Rohit Kumar Patel, Aged About 70 Years R/o Village- Basanpali, P.O. Sondka, Tahsil - Kharsiy, District Raigarh. Chhattisgarh.

¶15

6. Rambai W/o Gopal Patel, Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Nandeli, Tahsil -District Raigarh. Chhattisgarh.

¶16

7. Rambh W/o Late Shri Malimram Patel, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Kondatarai, Tahsil -District Raigarh. Chhattisgarh.

¶17

8. Ramula, W/o Lakshmi Prasad Patel Aged About 49 Years R/o Village - Taarpur, Tahsil -District Raigarh. Chhattisgarh.

¶18

9. Lakshmin Bai, W/o Nandlal, Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Kondatarai, Tahsil -District Raigarh. Chhattisgarh.

¶19

10. Sher Singh S/o Late Shri Rohit Kumar Patel Aged About 46 Years R/o Village - Basanpali, Po. R-Sondka, Tahsil - Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶20

2

¶21

11. Chudamani (Since Dead/deleted)

¶22

11. (A) Smt. Ahilya W/o Late Shri Chudamani Patel, Aged About 70 Years R/o Village - Basanpali, P.O. - Sondka, Tahsil - Kharsiya, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶23

11. (B) Satyanarayan Patel S/o Late Shri Chudamani Patel Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Basanpali, P.O. - Sondka, Tahsil - Kharsiya, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶24

11. (C) Roopkala Patel S/o Late Shri Chudamani Patel Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Basanpali, P.O. - Sondka, Tahsil - Kharsiya, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶25

11. (D) Champa Bai Patel D/o Late Shri Chudamani Patel Aged About 50 Years W/o Thandaram Patel, R/o Village - Post - Bharari, Tahsil - Masturi, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶26

11. (E) Rajni Patel D/o Late Shri Chudamani Patel Aged About 40 Years W/o Keshav Prasad Patel, R/o Village-Khurramuda, Post - Baihamuda, Tahsil - Ghardhoda, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 12. Puranjan S/o Tarachand, Aged About 51 Years R/o Village - Basanapali, Post - Sondka, Tahsil- Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶27

13. Narbada Bai, D/o Tarachand Aged About 53 Years R/o Village - Basanapali, Post - Sondka, Tahsil- Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶28

14. Gomti D/o Tarachand Aged About 54 Years R/o Village - Basanapali, Post - Sondka, Tahsil- Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶29

15. Malti Bai D/o Tarachand Aged About 49 Years R/o Village - Basanapali, Post - Sondka, Tahsil- Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶30

16. Dosh Kumari D/o Tarachand, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Basanapali, Post - Sondka, Tahsil- Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶31

17. Aasmati W/o Late Shri Chetan Aged About 70 Years R/o Village - Basanapali, Post - Sondka, Tahsil- Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶32

18. Dileshwar Prasad S/o Late Shri Chetan Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Basanapali, Post - Sondka, Tahsil- Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶33

19. Bhagirathi D/o Chaitan Aged About 46 Years R/o Village - Basanapali, Post - Sondka, Tahsil- Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶34

20. Mathura D/o Chaitan Aged About 50 Years W/o Yuvraj, R/o Village - Aurabhata, Post - Taarpur, Thana- Tahsil- District-

¶35

3

¶36

Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶37

21. Gayatri D/o Chaitan Aged About 42 Years W/o Late Shri Chintamani, R/o Village - Baghanpur, Po.R.-Kirodimal, ThanaTahsil- District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶38

22. Sohadra (Since Dead / Deleted)

¶39

22. (A) Puroshottam S/o Shri Chintalal Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Gojamuda, Post - Dhanagar, Thana- Tahsil- District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶40

22. (B) Sunita D/o Shri Chintalal Aged About 35 Years W/o Dilip, R/o Village - Post - Dolesara, Thana- Tahsil- Tamnar, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶41

22. (C) Sarita D/o Shri Chintalal Aged About 33 Years W/o Prakash, R/o Village- Chhatamuda, Thana- Tahsil- District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶42

23. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶43

... Respondent(s)

¶44

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Shantam Awasthi, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1	: Dr. Sudeep Agrawal along with Mr. Ramakant Patel, Advocate
For Respondent/ State	: Mr. Malay Jain, P.L.

¶45

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board

¶46

04.02.2026

¶47

The defendant/ appellant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity CPC) against the judgment & decree dated 31.07.2024 passed by the Learned II District Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Civil Appeal No. 55A/2019 (Manager D.B. Power Limited Vs. Jagdish Prasad Aghariya and Ors) whereby the appeal by the defendant No. 5/ appellant herein has been allowed in part and counter claim

¶48

4

¶49

of appellant/ defendant No. 5 is allowed which was preferred against the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2019 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Dabhara, District Janjgir Champa in Civil Suit No. 22-A/2008 (Jagdish & Ors. Vs. Rohit & Ors.) whereby the learned trial Judge has allowed the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent herein and dismissed the counter claim of the defendant No. 5/ appellant herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

¶50

The plaintiffs preferred the suit for declaration of nine registered sale deeds dated 19.06.2008 as null and void and for injunction pleading inter alia that the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 4 are members of the same family and jointly own agricultural land situated at village Badadarha, Patwari Halka No. 2, Tehsil Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, bearing Khasra No. 64 admeasuring 30.22 acres, as described in Schedule-A. The suit land is stated to be jointly held by the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 4 in equal 1/3rd shares and under their respective cultivating possession. It is alleged that defendants No. 1 to 4, without the consent of the plaintiffs, executed nine registered sale deeds dated 19.06.2008 in favour of defendant No. 5 in respect of the land described in Schedule-B, which includes the plaintiffs’ share. According to the plaintiffs, the said sale deeds were executed in collusion with defendants No. 5 and 6 on the basis of forged

¶51

5

¶52

documents and are, therefore, voidable and not binding upon the plaintiffs. On these pleadings, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the nine sale deeds dated 19.06.2008 are null and void and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession or raising any construction over the suit land.

¶53

Defendants/Respondents No. 1 to 4, in their written statement, denied the averments made in the plaint and contended that the plaintiffs have suppressed the true facts relating to the ancestral properties. It was pleaded that the common ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 4 held approximately 200 acres of land in a joint account, which stood partitioned long ago among Hirdaram, Kartikram and Ruplal, pursuant to which their respective revenue records and accounts were separately maintained. It was further pleaded that the partition deed relating to the shares of Hirdaram and Kartikram is in the possession of Hiradhar and Toharram, whereas the partition deed relating to Ruplal is in the possession of Jagdish and Salikram. According to the defendants, the lands described in Schedule-A had already been partitioned during the lifetime of the ancestors and do not retain the character of joint family property. The defendants further asserted that the plaintiffs themselves have alienated their respective partitioned lands in favour of third parties as well as defendant No. 5 and, therefore, are neither owners nor in possession of any 1/3rd share in the suit land. It was contended that the lands described in

¶54

6

¶55

Schedule-A no longer exist in the form claimed by the plaintiffs and that defendants No. 1 to 4 have sold only their self-acquired land from their individual holdings. On these grounds, it was pleaded that the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands and that no cause of action arose for institution of the suit.

¶56

Appellant/defendant No. 5, in his written statement, denied the averments made in the plaint and pleaded that the land sold by defendants No. 1 to 4 to defendant No. 5 belonged exclusively to defendants No.1 to 4 and was their self-acquired property, over which the plaintiffs had no right, title or possession. It was contended that respondents No. 1 to 4 lawfully sold the said land to respondent No. 5 on 19.06.2008 for valid consideration and executed nine registered sale deeds in his favour. It was further pleaded that pursuant to the said sale deeds, defendant No. 5 got his name mutated in the revenue records and came into lawful possession of the land. On these grounds, it was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed with costs.

¶57

Along with the written statement, the appellant herein/ defendant No. 5 has also filed a counter-claim, the facts of the counter-claim, in brief, is that he purchased the lands described in Schedule-C, situated at village Badadarha, from respondents No. 1 to 4 through nine registered sale deeds dated 17.06.2008 and was put in possession thereof. It is pleaded that his name has been duly recorded in the revenue records and that he has been in

¶58

7

¶59

continuous possession of the said land. The counter-claim pertains to 18.39 acres of land forming part of Schedule-A. It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs have no right, title or possession over the lands purchased by respondent No. 5. Without prejudice, it is averred that if the lands purchased by respondent No. 5 are held to be joint family property of the plaintiffs and respondents No. 1 to 4, then respondent No. 5 is entitled to allotment of the lands described in Schedule-C in the partition of respondents No. 1 to 4 and to a declaration of his ownership and possession thereof.

¶60

The reply filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 4 to the counter-claim is that defendant No. 5 purchased the lands described in Schedule-C from defendants No. 1 to 4 through nine sale deeds dated 17.06.2008. It is pleaded that the lands in Schedule-C constitute ancestral joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 4. It is further pleaded that the sale deeds executed by defendants No. 1 to 4 in favour of defendant No. 5 on 17.06.2008, without the consent, permission or approval of all the co-sharers, were fraudulent, illegal and void, having been executed behind the back of the plaintiffs with the intention of depriving them of their lawful 1/3rd share. It is contended that defendants No. 1 to 4 had no authority to alienate the suit land. On these grounds, it is prayed that the counter-claim filed by defendant No. 5 be dismissed.

¶61

On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge heard the

¶62

8

¶63

suit and the counter claim together and framed as many as 6 issues in the plaint and one issue with regard to the counter claim and given opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary and after a full fledged trial allowed the suit of the plaintiffs and declared all the sale deeds dated 19.06.2008 as null and void and also dismissed the counter claim of the defendant No. 5 mainly on the grounds that though defendants No. 1 to 4 pleaded prior partition in their written statement, but they led no evidence and did not appear before the court and were proceeded ex parte, nor did they specify allotment of any land under the alleged partition. Defendant No. 5 also failed to prove partition. In contrast, the plaintiffs proved joint family ownership and absence of partition through unrebutted revenue records. In the absence of proof of partition, defendants No. 1 to 4 had no authority to alienate the plaintiffs’ undivided share. Consequently, the sale deeds dated 19.06.2008 were held not binding on the plaintiffs, warranting interference and thus the suit of the plaintiffs was allowed and the counter claim of the defendant No. 5/ appellant herein was dismissed.

¶64

Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court the defendant No. 5/ appellant herein has preferred first appeal before the First Appellate Court which has been allowed in part vide judgment and decree impugned and the counter claim of the appellant herein/ defendant No. 5 was allowed. The learned First Appellate court has categorically observed that the suit land

¶65

9

¶66

described in Schedule-A had not been partitioned between the parties and continued to be jointly recorded in their names. Defendants No. 1 to 4, being co-owners, were entitled under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act to alienate only their undivided 1/3rd share in the joint property. However, they sold land in excess of their lawful share to defendant No. 5 through various registered sale deeds. To the extent the sale deeds executed land beyond the vendors’ (defendants No.1 to 4) 1/3rd undivided share, the same were held to be illegal and void, while the sale was held valid only to the extent of the vendors’ 1/3rd share. Further it was held that as the property remained unpartitioned, it was uncertain as to which specific portion constituted the share of defendants No. 1 to 4. Consequently, defendant No. 5, as a purchaser of an undivided share, was held not entitled to possession of any specific part of the joint property and was only entitled to seek partition and allotment of the vendors’ share by filing a separate suit. The remaining portion of Schedule-A covered by the impugned sale deeds, except those relating to the self-acquired properties, were declared illegal and void. The Court further held that the lands covered under registered sale deeds Exs. P-5, P-7 and P-10 were the self-acquired properties of defendants No. 1 to 4, and therefore, defendant No. 5 was declared the lawful owner and possessor thereof. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed in part and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside, and the counter claim was also allowed.

¶67

10

¶68

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record.

¶69

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court have committed a manifest error in treating the suit property as joint family property, despite clear evidence showing that the same was the self-acquired property of defendants No. 1 to 4 by virtue of prior partition and separate possession. It is contended that material documentary evidence, including the Rin Pustika and separate Khata records, demonstrating individual ownership, has been ignored. It is further submitted that the courts below failed to consider the appellant’s counter-claim seeking adjustment of the purchased land against the vendors’ share in the event the property was held to be joint. The learned counsel argues that alienation of self-acquired property post-partition is legally valid and that the impugned findings are contrary to settled principles and judicial precedents governing partition and alienation, thereby giving rise to substantial questions of law warranting interference by this Court. He further submits that PW-1, in his cross-examination, has admitted that partition had already taken place between the parties, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶70

From the material available on record, it is evident that, upon due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the Appellate Court has recorded a categorical finding that the suit land in Schedule-A remained unpartitioned and jointly

¶71

11

¶72

recorded. Defendants No. 1 to 4, as co-owners, could lawfully alienate only their undivided 1/3rd share, hence, the sale deeds in favour of defendant No. 5 were held valid only to that extent and illegal and void insofar as they conveyed land beyond the vendors’ share. As the property was unpartitioned, defendant No. 5 was held entitled only to seek partition of the vendors’ share and not possession of any specific portion. The sale deeds relating to the self-acquired properties of defendants No.1 to 4 (Exs. P-5, P-7 and P-10) were upheld.

¶73

Further it is trite law that purchaser of a coparcener's undivided interest in the joint family property is not entitled to possession of what he had purchased. He has a right only to sue for partition of the property and ask for allotment of his share in the suit property.

¶74

Even otherwise, the scope of interference in a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extremely limited. Interference is permissible only when the appeal involves a substantial question of law. Findings of fact recorded by the Court cannot be interfered with unless such findings are shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled principles of law.

¶75

In the present case, the First Appellate Court has recorded finding, on the basis of evidence available on record. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality, or misapplication of law in the findings so recorded.

¶76

The questions sought to be raised in the present Second Appeal

¶77

12

¶78

essentially relate to re-appreciation of evidence and challenge to findings of fact. Such questions do not give rise to any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶79

Be that as it may, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and the proposed question of law cannot be regarded as satisfying the test of being ‘substantial question of law’ within the meaning of Section 100 of CPC. These questions, in my view, are essentially question of facts. The appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law which is required under Section 100 of the CPC. In any event, the Second Appeal did not involve any substantial question of law as contemplated under Section 100 of the CPC, no case is made out by the appellants herein. The judgment impugned passed by the learned First appellate Court is just and proper and there is no illegality and infirmity at all.

¶80

17.Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.

¶81

SD/(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶82

Jyoti

Manager, D.B. Power Limited v. Jagdish Prasad Aghariya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manager, D.B. Power Limited v. Jagdish Prasad Aghariya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakti Singh Thakur Vs Motilal Dayalani

Mahendra Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raj Kumar Vs Rajanikant (Dead) through Lrs.

Smt. Hazra Begam Vs Inam Ur Rehman Beg @ Rahim Beg

Ganesh Ram Vs Safedram Pradhan

Kalyani Vs Smt. Basanti Bai