Late K Janki Rao (Dead) Through Lrs vs Late Aatmaram Sahu Through Lrs
2021 Latest Caselaw 1819 Chatt

                                            1


                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                       Order Sheet
                                   FA No. 487 of 2019
 1. Late K Janki Rao (Dead) Through Lrs S/o Late K T Rao, R/o Mig-1-1066, HUDCO, Bhilai,
    Tahsil, Civil And Revenue District Durg, Chhattisgarh (since dead) through LRs,


    (i) K Neelamma W/o Late K T Rao Aged About 73 Years R/o Mig-1-1066, HUDCO, Bhilai,
    Tahsil, Civil And Revenue District Durg, Chhattisgarh.,

    (ii) Late K T Rao S/o R K Trimraiya Aged About 68 Years (Died During Pendency Of The
    Suit With 2 Legal Heirs K Neelamma And K G Rao (Address And Details Already
    Mentioned)

 2. K G Rao S/o Late K T Rao Aged About 55 Years R/o Mig-1-1066, Hudco, Bhilai, Tehsil,
    Civil And Revenue District Durg, Chhattisgarh.,

 3. Late K Jogender Rao S/o Late K T Rao Aged About 32 Years R/o MIG-1-1066, HUDCO,
    Bhilai, Tahsil, Civil And Revenue District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Lr's K Neelamma
    (Address And Details Already Mentioned Above),                 ---- Appellant/Defendants

                                         Versus

 1. Late Aatmaram Sahu, S/o Matwa Ram Sahu (Died during the pendency of the suit &
    substituted by his legal representatives & heirs).

    (1) Smt. Pawara Bai Wd/o Late Aatmaram Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Risama,
    Tahsil, Civil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.,

    (2) Rajim Bai D/o Late Aatmaram Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Risama, Tahsil, Civil
    And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.,

    (3) Smt. Dulari Bai D/o Late Aatmaram Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Risama, Tahsil,
    Civil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.,

 2. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.,
    District : Durg, Chhattisgarh                          ---- Respondents/Plaintiffs

    7                                 Through Video Conference

17.08.2021        Shri Ravindra Agrawal, counsel for the appellants.

Shri B.P.Sharma, counsel for respondents No.1(1) to 1(3).

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal. P.L. for the State/respondent No.2.

Heard on I.A.No. 01/2019, an application for issuance of temporary

injunction against plaintiff/respondent No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC') for creation of any third party

interest over the property in question and, also on I.A.No.02/2019 filed under

Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC for staying the effect and

operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.09.2019 passed in

Civil Suit No. 388-A/2011, pending decision of this appeal.

From perusal of the record, it appears that Defendant No.1 - K. Janki Rao

(since deceased, now represented by his legal representatives, namely, K.

Neelamma and another) and Defendant No.2 - K.G.Rao have purchased the

property in question bearing Kh.No.826/1 admeasuring 0.83 hectares situated at

village Risali, Tahsil & District Durg under a registered deed of sale dated

19.01.2000, registered on 22.01.2000 (Ex.D.1), purported to have been

executed by one late K.Jogender Rao (original Defendant No.3) while acting as

a registered Power of Attorney Holder of its owner, namely, Aatmaram Sahu, the

plaintiff, who is now represented by his legal representatives, namely, Smt.

Pawara Bai and others.

The aforesaid registered deed of sale (Ex.D.1) has been held to be null

and void by the trial Court vide its impugned judgment and decree by holding,

inter alia, that the alleged registered Power of Attorney (Ex.D.3), executed on

31.05.1996, based upon which the alleged sale was executed, was a forged

document and also on the ground that the sale consideration has not been paid

to the original plaintiff - Aatmaram Sahu, and therefore, no right or title over the

property in question would confer upon its purchasers.

What is reflected in the matter is that Defendants No. 1 & 2 have acquired

their right, title and interest on the strength of the registered deed of sale dated

22.01.2000, which has, however, been held to be null and void. But, in the event

of alienation of the property in question, it would certainly affect the valuable

interest of Defendants No. 1 & 2 and would cause irreparable loss to them. In

view thereof, it would be just and proper to safeguard the interest of the parties,

pending decision of this appeal.

Accordingly, both the parties are hereby directed to maintain the status

quo as it exists today with regard to the property in question in so far as the

creation of third party interest of it is concerned, pending decision of this appeal.

With the aforesaid observation, both the applications, marked as

I.A.No.01/2019 & 02/2019, are disposed of.

Let the matter be listed for final hearing in its turn.

Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

Anjani