Poonam Shukla vs Manoj Kumar Shukla
2021 Latest Caselaw 3630 Chatt

            T O HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                    Order Sheet
                               FA No. 111 of 2020
• Poonam Shukla Aged About 35 Years, Widow of- Late Shri Santosh ShuklaR/o-
  Kamthi Line, Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh,
                                                                     ---- Appellant
                                      Versus
1. Manoj Kumar Shukla S/o Late Shri Chandra Shekhar Shukla, Aged About 66
  Years   R/o     Magarpara,   Jharabhata      Road,   Ramanuj Apartment,   Bilaspur
  Chhattisgarh.
2. Smt. Meera D/o Late Chandrasekhar, W/o Dinesh Thakur Aged About 58 Years
  R/o Junihatri Lohar Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Rahul Shukla S/o- Manoj Kumar Shukla Aged About 30 Years R/o Kamthi Line
  Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) Present Address C/51 G.M.D.C, Post At. P.S. Colony,
  District Kuchh (Gujarat).
4. Dipti Shukla D/o Late Shri Santosh Shukla Aged About 19 Years
5. Richa Shukla, D/o Late Shri Santosh Shukla Aged About 19 Years
6. Deepika Shukla, D/o Late Shri Santosh Shukla Aged About 15 Years
7. Guru Prasad Shukla, S/o Late Santosh Kumar Shukla Aged About 13 Years
  Respondents No.6 & 7 Minor Through Next Friend Mother Smt. Poonam Shukla,

W/o Santosh Shukla, Respondents No.4 to 7 R/o Kamptee Line, Tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

8. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

9. Rohit Shukla, S/o Manoj Shukla, Aged About 39 Years R/o Magarpara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

10.Rohini Upadhaya, D/o Manoj Shukla, Aged About 37 Years R/o Magarpara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Present R/o House No. 19, Block C/2, Shashtripuram Agra (Uttar Pradesh).

11.Kumari Ragini Shukla, D/o Manoj Shukla, Aged About 34 Years R/o Magarpara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents 10.12.2021 Ms. Prabha Sharma, Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. K. K. Singh, G. A. for the State.

The application filed by the appellant for exemption from Court fees is not pressed as the appellant has already deposited the Court fees to the tune of Rs.86,625/- on 17.08.2021.

Heard on I.A.No.1/2020, application for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was delay of 40 days due to financially unstable in paying the Court fees.

On due consideration, I.A.No.1/2020 is allowed. Heard on admission.

Admit.

Issue notice to respondents by ordinary mode. PF be paid within a week.

Also heard on I.A.No.2/2020, application under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC for grant of interim relief for stay of execution of decree.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that prima facie the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is illlegal as the learned trial Court has recorded perverse findings. As per will dated 02.08.2004 the sole plantiff Rahul Shukl has become sole owner of property. The learned trial Court has recorded the findings that Will is doubtful and Will has not been exhibited as per provision of Succession Act, 1925 and as per provision of Indian Evidence Act.

On due consideration, I.A.No.2/2020 is allowed, judgment and decree passed by trial Court shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing subject to furnish surety of Rs.50,000/- before the learned trial Court.

Certified Copy Today.

List this case after Six weeks.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Parul