Smt. Savitri Devi vs Ram Subhag (Deleted) Through Lrs
2021 Latest Caselaw 1202 Chatt

                      1

                                                 NAFR

     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

              SA No.169 of 2011

1. Smt. Savitri Devi, Wd/o Late      Jagat    Narayan
   Dubey, Aged About 50 Years

2. Vikas Kumar, S/o Late    Jagat   Narayan   Dubey,
   Aged About 27 Years

3. Ku. Alka, D/o Late Jagat Narayan Dubey, Aged
   About 25 Years

4. Ku. Nidhi, D/o Late Jagat Narayan Dubey, Aged
   About 23 Years

5. Shriram, S/o Late Jagat Narayan Dubey, Aged
   About 21 Years

  All are resident of ­ Village Sardi, P.S.
  Charcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea,
  Chhattisgarh, through the Special Power of
  Attorney, Gulab Dutt Dubey, S/o Kedarnath
  Dubey, Aged About 72 Years, Caste­ Bhramin,
  Occupation ­ Cultivator, R/o Village Sardi,
  P.S. Charcha, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District­
  Korea, Chhasttisgarh

                                    ­­­­ Appellants

                   Versus

1. Ram Subhag (Deleted) Through Lrs As Per Honble
   Court Order Dated 02­03­2021.

  1­a Harakhlal, S/o Late Ram Subhag, Aged About
  62 Years

  1­b Shriram, S/o Late Ram Subhag, Aged About
  43 Years

  1­C Sitaram, S/o Late Ram Subhag, Aged About
  41 Years

  All   are   R/o   Village   Targanwa,   Tahsil
  Baikunthpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh

2. Ram Dulare (Died) Through Lrs­ As Per Honble
                             2

       Court Order Dated 06­04­2021.

       2­a Heeral (died) Through Lrs., As Per Honble
       Court Order Dt. 02­07­2021.

       2­a (1) Mankunwar, Wd/o Late Heeralal, Aged
       About 52 Years

       2­a (2) Ramcharan,    S/o   Late    Heeralal,    Aged
       About 32 Years

       2­a (3) Ramvilas,    S/o    Late    Heeralal,    Aged
       About 30 Years

       All are R/o Village Sargawan, Post and P.S.
       Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya
       (C.G.)

       2­b Pancham Lal,    S/o   Late   Ram   Dulare,   Aged
       About 40 Years

       2­c Harinath, S/o Late Ram Dulare, Aged About
       39 Years

       Respondent Nos.2­b & 2­c are R/o Village

Targanwa, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.)

3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Korea, Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

­­­­ Respondents

For Appellants Mr. A. K. Shukla, Advocate For Respondent­State Mr. Sunil Otwani, Addl. AG

Hon'ble Justice Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

16/07/2021

1. 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/defendant

Nos.2a to 2e.

3. By the impugned judgment and decree, the First

Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal

preferred by the appellants/defendant Nos.2a

to 2e vide judgment and decree dated

08.04.2011 passed by the learned First

Additional District Judge, Manendragarh,

Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) in Civil

Appeal No.48A/2010 as also the appeal of the

plaintiff in Civil Appeal No.49A/2010 by a

common judgment and decree affirming the

judgment dated 29.09.2007 and decree dated

03.10.2007 of the Trial Court passed by the

learned Second Civil Judge Class­I,

Baikunthpur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.24­A/2005,

whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the

counter claim filed by the appellants/

defendant Nos.2a to 2e and the suit preferred

by the plaintiff as well.

4. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the

appellants/defendant Nos.2a to 2e, would

submit that both the Courts below have

concurrently erred in dismissing the counter

claim filed by the appellants/defendant Nos.2a

to 2e, as they are in settled possession over

the suit land and the permanent injunction

ought to have been issued in their favour

against the defendant No.1. 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/defendant Nos.2a to 2e, considered

his submissions made herein­above and also

went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

6. The counter claim filed by the appellants/

defendant Nos.2a to 2e restraining the

defendant No.1 from interfering in their

possession was dismissed by the Trial Court

holding that the defendant No.2 was not in

possession of the suit land from the

inception, though his name was recorded in the

revenue record, therefore, the LRs of

defendant No.2 i.e. the defendant Nos.2a to 2e

are not entitled for permanent injunction

against the defendant No.1, which has also

been affirmed by the First Appellate Court.

7. Both the courts below have concurrently held

that the defendant No.2 was not in possession

of the suit land from the inception, though

his name was recorded in the revenue record,

as such both the Courts below declined decree

in favour of defendant No.2. The said 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.

8. I do not find any substantial question of law

for admission of 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