Trivbuvan Singh vs Goverdhan Singh
2021 Latest Caselaw 321 Chatt

                                1

                                                               NAFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                 Second Appeal No.210 of 2010

1. Trivbuvan Singh, S/o Shri Gokaran Singh, Age 35 years, Farmer,
   R/o Village Sambalpur, Tahsil Navagarh, Distt. Durg.

2. Gokaran Singh, Age 62 yrs, S/o Ripusudan Singh, Farmer, R/o
   Village Sambalpur, Tahsil Navagarh, Distt. Durg.
                                                      (Defendants)
                                                    ---- Appellants

                             Versus

1. Goverdhan Singh, Age 65 yrs, S/o Ripusudan Singh, Farmer, R/o
   Village Sambalpur, Tahsil Navagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.)
                                                          (Plaintiff)

2. Mongrabai, Wd/o Firan Singh, age 70 yrs

3. Satish, S/o Firan Singh, age 38 years,

  No.2 & 3 Farmer, R/o Village Botebod, Tahsil Navagarh, Distt.
  Durg.

4. Ku. Pukke, D/o Firan Singh, age 34 yrs, R/o Village Balod, Distt.
   Durg.

5. Smt. Nirmala, W/o Rajendra Singh, age 45 years, R/o Village
   Balod (Bazar Para), Distt. Durg.

6. Smt. Kaminee, W/o Harnarayan Singh Thakur, age 42 years, R/o
   Village Kalegondri, Gandai, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, Distt.
   Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

7. Smt. Gouri (Dead) Through Legal Heirs

  7a) Rajendra Singh, aged about 65 years, S/o Puran Singh,

  7b) Devendra Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o Puran Singh

  7a and b R/o Village Pamgarh, Chandipara, Tahsil Pamgarh,
  Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

  7c) Sarita Thakur, aged about 45 years, W/o Santosh Thakur,
  R/o Village and Post Nandghat, Tahsil Navagarh, Distt. Bemetara
  (C.G.)

8. Smt. Gulab Bai, Wd/o Manbahal Singh Thakur, Age 67 years,
   R/o Village Doundi, Distt. Durg (C.G.)

9. Smt. Godavari (Dead) Through Legal Heirs

  9a) Khopendra Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o Gajrusingh
  Thakur, R/o Village Bandi, Post Ghangi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)
                                            2

       9b) Smt. Kamlesh, aged about 45 years, W/o Karan Singh, R/o
       Near Mudagaon Para Nahar, Near Bajrang Bali Mandir, Khariyar
       Road, Odisha

  10. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector, Durg.

  11. Smt. Rukmani Bai, Wd/o Ramji Singh, Age 70 years, R/o Village
      Janjee, Tahsil Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)
                                                    ---- Respondents

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

For Appellants / Defendants: -

Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 / Plaintiff: -

Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate.

For Respondent No.10 / State: -

Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Deputy Advocate General.

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

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

15/06/2021

1. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of

law in this second appeal preferred by the appellants herein / LR

of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2.

2. By the impugned judgment, the first appellate Court has

dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff as well as preferred

by the LR of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 affirming the

judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit filed by

the plaintiff and the counter suit and appeal filed by the LR of

defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 also.

3. Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellants

herein / defendants, would submit that both the Courts below

have concurrently erred in holding that the suit house shown in

Schedule B of the plaint A & B is not the property held by

defendants No.1 & 2 and is the property held by Firan Singh

which has been obtained on succession by his son defendant

No.4 Satish, by recording a finding which is perverse to record

and the appeal deserves admission by formulating substantial

question of law.

4. The suit house was originally held by Ripusudan who died in the

year 1989. The plaintiff is one of the sons of Ripusudan, whereas

original defendants No.1 & 2 Ramji and Gokaran are also the

sons of Ripusudan. Firan Singh who died in the year 2001 was

also the son of Ripusudan and defendant No.3 Mongra Bai is

widow of Firan Singh. Defendant No.4 Satish is son of Firan

Singh and defendants No.5, 6 and 7 are daughters of Firan Singh.

The plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title, partition and

separate possession and also for permanent injunction stating

inter alia that the suit property shown in Schedules A & B

appended to the plaint, both, were held by Firan Singh and the

property shown in Schedule A was partitioned among the parties

and the property shown in Schedule B fell in the share of the

plaintiff in oral partition which the plaintiff has been dispossessed

by defendants No.3 to 7 and therefore he is entitled for

possession. In the said suit, defendants No.1 & 2 also set

counter-claim.

5. The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence available on record dismissed the suit as well as the

counter-suit filed by defendants No.1 & 2 and the first appeals

preferred by the plaintiff and defendants No.1 & 2, both, were also

dismissed by the first appellate Court. The two courts have

clearly recorded a finding that so far as property mentioned in

Schedule A of the plaint is concerned, there is no dispute between

the parties, however, the property shown in Schedule B,

particularly, A & B is the property fell in the share of Firan Singh

and after his death, it was received by his son Satish - defendant

No.4 on succession. As such, it is held that the property

mentioned in Schedule B i.e. A & B is held by Firan Singh and

after his death, by his son Satish - defendant No.4 in which the

plaintiff has no right, title and interest. The said finding has been

recorded by the trial Court after due appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence available on record and the said finding

recorded by the trial Court has been affirmed by the first

appellate Court. As such, the property shown in Schedule B i.e. A

& B is the property held exclusively by Firan Singh and

thereafter, after his death, it was inherited by his wife Mongra Bai

and son Satish - defendants No.3 & 4, respectively. 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 substantial question of law for determination of 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