Smt. Nira Bai And Anr vs Smt. Dashoda Bai And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1154 Chatt

                             1

                                                           NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                     SA No.172 of 2012

     1. Smt. Nira Bai, D/o Mannulal Sahu, aged about
        52 years, R/o Village Pendrikala Patwari Halka
        No.17, Tahsil Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon
        (C.G.)

     2. Smt. Darnia Bai, W/o Mannulal Sahu, aged about
        59 years, R/o Village Pendrikala Patwari Halka
        No.17, Tahsil Khairagarh, Distrit Rajnandgaon
        (C.G.)

                                             ­­­­ Appellants

                          Versus

     1. Smt. Dashoda Bai, D/o Mannulal Sahu, W/o
        Tikam, aged not known, R/o Nawagaon Bharetha,
        Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

     2. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector,
        Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

                                             ­­­­ Respondents

For Appellants Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Adv For Respondent­State Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Dy. AG

Hon'ble Justice Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

14/07/2021

1. The proceedings of this matter have been taken

up through Video Conferencing.

2. Heard on admission and formulation of

substantial question of law in this second

appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants.

3. By the impugned judgment and decree, the First

Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal

preferred by the appellants/defendants vide

judgment and decree dated 31.03.2012 passed by

the learned Additional District Judge,

Khairagarh (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.22A/2009

affirming the judgment and decree of the Trial

Court dated 28.02.2009 passed by the learned

Civil Judge Class­I, Khairagarh (C.G.) in

Civil Suit No.32­A/2004, whereby the learned

Trial Court decreed the suit preferred by the

respondent No.1/plaintiff.

4. Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the

appellants/defendants, would submit that both

the Courts below have concurrently erred in

holding that the suit property is the joint

family property of plaintiff and defendant

Nos.1 & 2 by recording a finding perverse to

the record. As such, the appeal involves

substantial question of law for determination

and deserves to be admitted for hearing.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the

appellants/defendants, considered his

submissions made herein­above and also went

through the records with utmost

circumspection.

6. The suit property was originally held by Mannu

Lal. The plaintiff and the defendant No.1 are

the daughters of Mannu Lal, whereas the

defendant No.2 is the wife of Mannu Lal. One

of the daughters of Mannu Lal filed a suit for

declaration of joint ownership and declaring

the order dated 06.10.2003 passed by the

Tahsildar as null and void stating interalia

that the suit property was jointly recorded in

the revenue record in the name of plaintiff

and the defendant Nos.1 & 2 and they were in

the joint possession, but the defendant Nos.1

& 2 got deleted the name of the plaintiff from

the revenue record behind the back of the

plaintiff by order of the Tahsildar,

Khairagarh dated 06.10.2003, against which the

plaintiff also preferred an appeal before the

SDO, Khairagarh, but the same was dismissed as

barred by limitation, which resulted into

filing of suit by the plaintiff claiming

decree, which was opposed by the defendants by

filing their written statement inter­alia

stating that the plaintiff has no right and

title over the suit property.

7. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral

and documentary evidence available on record

came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is

the joint owner of the suit property along

with defendant Nos.1 & 2 and the order dated

06.10.2003 passed by the Tahsildar, Khairagarh

is null and void, as the same has been passed

behind the back of the plaintiff and

accordingly decreed the suit, which has also

been affirmed by the First Appellate Court in

the appeal preferred by the appellants/

defendants.

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the

concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts

below holding the suit property to be the

joint family property of plaintiff and

defendant Nos.1 & 2 is the finding of fact

based on the evidence available on record, as

no partition has taken place between them and

further the order of the Tahsildar has also

rightly been declared as null void, as the

name of the plaintiff has been deleted from

the revenue record without notice to the

plaintiff. As such, the finding recorded by

the two Courts below is the finding of fact

based on the evidence available on record,

which is neither perverse nor contrary to

record.

9. I do not find any substantial question of law

for determination in this second appeal. It

deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in

limine without notice to the other side. No

order as to cost (s).

Sd/­ Sanjay K. Agrawal Judge Nirala