1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
SA No. 289 of 2018
Manharan Lal Dewangan s/o Baliram Dewangan, Aged About 48 Years
Businessman, R/o Village Parpodi, Tehsil Saaja, District Bemetara,
Chhattisgarh(Plaintiff) ---- Appellant
Versus
1. President Nagar Panchayat Parpodi Tehsil Saaja, District Bemetara,
Chhattisgarh
2. Chief Municipal Officer, Parpodi, Tehsil Saaja, District Bemetara,
Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Saaja, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
4. Collector, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh(Defendants)
---- Respondents
For Appellant :Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate For Respondent Nos.3 & 4/State:Shri Ravi Pal Maheshwari, Panel Lawyer Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment/Order on Board 08.02.2023
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff- Manharan Lal Dewangan under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC'), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No.7-A/2013, whereby, the learned appellate court while affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Saaja, District Bemetara(CG) in Civil Suit No.12- A/2011, has dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal. The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the Court below.
2
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a suit for declaration of title and injunction was made by the Plaintiff alleging, inter alia, that Defendant No.1- Nagar Panchayat, Parpodi has constructed 14 shops in the Aabadi land bearing Khasra No.276 and has allotted the same to its allottees. It is pleaded further that one of the shops, i.e. shop No.9 was allotted to one Raju Dewangan, who sold the same to one Arif Mohammad and that by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated 22.09.2006, he purchased the same from him. It is pleaded further that since the condition of the shop was dilapidated, therefore, after obtaining due permission from the concerned authorities, he reconstructed the same and is running his Hotel business. Further contention of the Plaintiff is that Defendant No.1-Nagar Panchayat, Parpodi has issued a notice on 19.04.2011 as per the provisions prescribed under Section 187 and 223 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 and in response to it, he submitted before the said authorities the registered deed of sale, but after issuance of the alleged notice, Defendant No.1 is trying to dispossess him on 27.06.2011, therefore, he has been constrained to institute the suit in the instant nature.
3. The Defendants have contested the aforesaid claim and Defendants 1 and 2, by submitting their counter claim have pleaded that the shop in question has been constructed in the said Aabadi land, and therefore, no one can claim the ownership on it. It is contested further on the ground that the shop in question was never allotted to said Raju Dewangan, as pleaded by the Plaintiff, nor was it sold by him to Arif Mohammad and therefore, he has no alienable interest whatsoever over it. As such, the Plaintiff has not acquired any interest over the shop in 3 question nor is entitled to be declared the owner of it based upon the alleged sale and, therefore, it deserves to be dismissed while claiming the issuance of injunction against them under their counter claim.
4. From perusal of the record, it appears that the Plaintiff is claiming his ownership with regard to the shop in question i.e. shop No.9, alleged to have been constructed by Defendant No.1- Nagar Panchayat, Parpodi over the said Aabadi land, i.e., Khasra No.276. The said claim has been made on the basis of the registered deed of sale dated 22.09.2006 purported to have been executed by said Arif Mohammad in his favour, marked as Ex.P-1. A bare perusal of the alleged deed of sale would, however, show that it was executed with regard to part of Khasra No.276/9 admeasuring 15ft x 20ft, total admeasuring 300 sq.ft., which appears to be distinct from the suit shop alleged to have been constructed over the said Aabadi land.
5. Be that as it may, the shop in question was alleged to have been allotted by the said Nagar Panchayat, Parpodi to one Raju Dewangan and who, in turn, has sold the same to Arif Mohammad and from whom, the Plaintiff has purchased the same under the said sale (Ex.P-1). But, surprising enough to observe here that neither the allotment order, if any, made in favour of said Raju Dewangan was placed on record, nor the deed of sale by virtue of which, he sold the same to said Arif Mohammad has been brought to our notice, although the burden to establish the said fact was heavily upon the Plaintiff as, it is the settled principles of law that the Plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it. In absence of cogent and reliable evidence placed on record, it is, therefore, difficult 4 to hold that the property in question was either allotted to said Raju Dewangan or the same was sold by him to Plaintiff's vendor, namely, Arif Mohammad. Consequently, the courts below have not committed any illegality in dismissing the Plaintiff's claim and, I do not find any question of law, much less the substantial questions of law which arise for determination in this appeal.
6. The appeal being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself.
No order as to costs. Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
JUDGE
sunita
5
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
SA No. 289 of 2018
Manharan Lal Dewangan Versus President Nagar Panchayat Parpodi & Ors. 08/02/2023 Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel for the Appellant.
Shri Ravi Pal Maheshwari, Panel Lawyer for the State/ Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Arguments heard on admission.
Judgment/order dictated in open Court. Signed and dated separately. Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge sunita