Chattisgarh High Court
Sundri vs Karmato on 14 June, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Second Appeal No.540 of 2019
1. Sundri, D/o late Moti, W/o Basant, aged about 48 years,
2. Bigni, D/o late Moti, W/o Dashrath, aged about 53 years,
Both are R/o Village Jagdishpur @ Adhina, Post Salka, Police Station
Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur (C.G.)
(Defendants)
---- Appellants
Versus
1. Karmato, D/o late Moti, W/o Chandan Ram, aged about 60 years,
Caste Rajwar, Occupation Cultivator, R/o Village & Post Jarhi, Police
Station & Tahsil Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.)
(Plaintiff)
2. Tejpal, S/o Bira, aged about 30 years,
3. Bifaiya, D/o Bira, aged about 28 years,
4. Kunti, D/o Bira, aged about 25 years,
5. Mulki, Wd/o Bira, aged about 60 years,
No.2 to 5 are by Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Jagdishpur @ Adhina, Post
Salka, Police Station Bhatgaon, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur
(C.G.)
6. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Collector, Surajpur, District
Surajpur (C.G.)
(Defendants)
---- Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellants / Defendants: Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate.
For Respondent No.6 / State: Mr. Sunil Otwani, Additional Adv. General.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
14/06/2021
1. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law for
determination in the second appeal preferred by the appellants
herein / defendants No.1 & 2 by which the first appellate Court has
reversed the judgment & decree of the trial Court and granted decree
in favour of the plaintiff.
2. Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
herein / defendants No.1 & 2, would submit that the first appellate
Court is absolutely unjustified in holding that the plaintiff is daughter of
Moti from his first wife and thereby entitled for ⅓ share in the suit
property by recording a finding which is perverse to the record, as
such, the appeal involves substantial question of law and question of
law be formulated by admitting the appeal.
3. I have perused the judgments & decrees of both the Courts below as
also the records thereof.
4. The plaintiff filed suit stating inter alia that the suit property is held by
Moti and she is his daughter from his first wife Bifaiya and defendants
No.1 & 2 are daughters of Moti from his second wife, and the
defendants after death of Moti got their names recorded in the
revenue record and her appeal and revision before the authorities
have already been rejected necessitating the filing of suit for
declaration of title and partition in which defendants No.1 & 2 pleaded
by filing written statement that they are the only daughters of Moti and
the plaintiff has no right and title over the suit land, as such, the
plaintiff is not the daughter of Moti. The trial Court dismissed the suit,
but the first appellate Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is
daughter of Moti out of his wedlock with his first wife and defendant
No.2 in Civil Suit No.128A/2001 filed against the plaintiff & defendant
No.1 in relation to the named property has admitted that plaintiff
Karmato is daughter of Moti from his first wife, as such, the admission
made by defendant No.2 in the earlier civil suit filed with the same
finding is binding on them and accordingly, decreed the suit granting
⅓ share in the suit property. The first appellate Court has clearly
recorded a finding that Karmato is daughter of Moti from his first wife
and defendants No.1 & 2 are daughters of Moti from his second wife,
it is a pure and simple finding of fact based on the evidence available
on record, particularly in Civil Suit No.128A/2001, defendant No.2
Bigni, who is appellant No.2 herein and plaintiff No.2 therein, has
admitted the fact that Karmato is daughter of Moti. The said
admission on the part of Bigni - defendant No.2 has not been
explained by her, as such, on the basis of said admission and other
evidence available on record, it has clearly been held by the first
appellate Court that the plaintiff is daughter of Moti. The said finding
is a finding of fact based on the evidence available on record, it is
neither perverse nor contrary to the record. I do not find any good
ground to admit the appeal and no substantial question of law is
involved in the appeal, it 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
