Paradeshi Ram And Another vs Itwar Singh And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 267 Chatt

                                                  1

                                                                                             NAFR

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                              Second Appeal No.295 of 2007

    1. Paradeshi Ram, S/o Late Bhukhan Singh, aged about 30 years,

    2. Lakhan Singh, S/o Late Bhukhan Singh, aged about 27 years,

        Both are R/o Village Udata, Tah Katghora, Distt. Korba (C.G.)
                                                                     (Plaintiffs)
                                                                ---- Appellants

                                              Versus

    1. Itwar Singh, S/o Shri Jhagaru Singh, aged about 40 years,

    2. Bipat Singh, S/o Jhagaru Singh, aged about 37 years,

        Both Caste Kanvar, and R/o Udata, Tah. Katghora, Distt. Korba (C.G.)

    3. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Distt. Korba (C.G.)
                                                                                    (Defendants)
                                                                               ---- Respondents

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellants/Plaintiffs: Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent No.3/State: -

Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Deputy Govt. Advocate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

11/06/2021

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 herein / plaintiffs.

3. By the impugned judgment, the first appellate Court has dismissed the

first appeal of the plaintiffs affirming the judgment and decree of the

trial Court dismissing the suit filed seeking decree for declaration of

title in their favour.

4. Mr. Bharat Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the appellants herein

/ plaintiffs, would submit that both the Courts below have concurrently

erred in holding that the plaintiffs are not successors-in-interest of

Jhagru Singh and further erred in holding that the suit land of 3.65

acres situated at Village Udata, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, is the

ancestral property of the defendants and therefore the plaintiffs are

not entitled for decree of declaration of title in their favour, as such,

substantial question of law be formulated for hearing the appeal.

5. Defendants No.1 and 2, both, are admittedly sons of Jhagru Singh,

The plaintiffs claimed that they are also the grand-sons of Jhagru

Singh, their father being Bhukhan Singh who was the son of Jhagru

Singh. The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence available on record clearly held that Bhukhan Singh -

plaintiffs' father, was not son of Jhagru Singh and defendants No.1 &

2 are the only sons / successors-in-interest of Jhagru Singh, therefore,

the plaintiffs are not successors-in-interest of Jhagru Singh. Further, it

has been clearly held by the trial Court that the suit property is held by

the defendants and they are title holders and interest holders of the

suit property and the plaintiffs have no right and title over the suit

property. As such, the finding recorded that the plaintiffs are not

successors-in-interest of Jhagru Singh and the suit property is

exclusively held by the defendants and they are the successors-in-

interest of Jhagru Singh is a pure and simple finding of fact. The said

finding recorded by the Courts below is a finding of fact based on the

evidence available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to

record. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the said finding

warranting admission of appeal by formulating substantial question of

law. I do not find any merit much less substantial question of law for

determination in this appeal. The second appeal deserves to be and

is accordingly dismissed in limine without notice to the other side. No

order as to cost(s).

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

Soma