Dharamdas vs (Deleted) Pahatiya Satnami
2021 Latest Caselaw 424 Chatt

                         1

                                                NAFR

   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                SA No. 159 of 2011

 Dharamdas S/o Pahatiya Satnami, aged about
 52   years,    R/o   Village   Fingeshwar,   Tahsil
 Raji, District Raipur, C.G.

                                     ­­­­ Appellant

                      Versus

1. (Deleted) Pahatiya Satnami Vide Court Order
  Dated 09­02­2021

2. Anand Ram S/o Pahatiya Satnami Aged About 35
  Years R/o Village Fingeshwar, Tahsil Rajim,
  District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. State   of    Chhattisgarh   Through   Collector
  Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Samarin Bai W/o Gopal Satnami Aged About 40
  Years R/o Village Beldih, Tahsil Abhanpur,
  District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

5. Gangabai W/o Ghuruva Satnami Aged About 35
  Years R/o Village Nawagaon, Tahsil Magarlod,
  District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

6. Maheshwari W/o Bhaiyalal Satnami Aged About
  33 Years R/o Village Torla, Tahsil Abhanpur,
  District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
                                 2

                                              ­­­­ Respondents

For Appellant :­ Mr. Vivek Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondents No.2,4­6 :­ Mr. A.P. Sharma, Adv.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

21/06/2021

1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken

up through video conferencing.

2. Heard on admission and formulation of

substantial question of law in second appeal

preferred by the appellant/plaintiff.

3. By the impugned judgment and decree, the first

appellate Court has dismissed the appeal

preferred by the appellant / plaintiff

affirming the judgment and decree of the trial

Court partly decreeing the suit of the

appellant / plaintiff.

4. Mr. Vivek Tripathi, learned counsel for the

appellant / plaintiff, would submit that the

first appellate Court is absolutely

unjustified in dismissing the appeal filed by

the appellant / plaintiff by recording a

finding which is perverse to the record. It

ought to have held that the property shown in

Ex. P­1 to Ex. P­3 are benami property, which

were not the exclusive property of plaintiff­

Dharamdas, as such, the appeal deserves to be

admitted for hearing by formulating

substantial question of law for determination.

5. The plaintiff and defendant No.2 are sons of

defendant No.1­Pahatiya and defendants No.4 to

6 are sisters of the plaintiff and defendant

No.2. The plaintiff filed a suit that the suit

property is an ancestral property in which the

plaintiff, defendants No.1 & 2 and defendants

No.4 to 6 all have equal share i.e. 1/3 rd

share, in which defendants No.1 and 2 filed

their written statement and also filed counter

claim stating that the property covered by Ex.

P­1 to Ex. P­3 are also benami property and,

as such, this property be also subjected to

partition.

6. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence available on record, by

its judgment and decree dated 29.06.2010,

partly decreed the suit holding that the suit

property is ancestral property of the

plaintiff, defendants No.1 & 2 and defendants

No. 4 to 6 and each one have 1/6th share in the

property. The trial Court has also held that

as claimed by defendants No.1 and 2, only the

property bearing Khasra Nos.2680 and 1454 are

joint family property and remaining properties

which are subject matter of Ex. P­1 to Ex. P­3

are self­acquired property of plaitniff­

Dharamdas and accordingly, partly decreed the

suit, against which, the plaintiff filed first

appeal stating that other property which is in

the name of the plaintiff, Ex. P­1 to Ex. P­3,

are also ancestral property purchased in the

name of the plaintiff, therefore, the trial

Court ought to have held that it is also the

ancestral property of the parties. The first

appellate Court did not accept the plea of the

plaintiff and dismissed the appeal.

7. Findings recorded by two Courts below that

only the property shown in Exs. D­6 and D­7

bearing Khasra Nos.2680 and 1454 are the

property purchased by defendant No.1 and it is

ancestral property and the property purchased

by plaintiff vide Exs. P­1 to P­3 are self­

acquired property of plaintiff­Dharamdas are

findings of fact based on evidence available

on record. These findings are neither perverse

nor contrary to record, as such, I do not find

any substantial question of law for

determination of this second appeal.

8. Accordingly, the second appeal being deviod of

merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed

in limine without notice to other side. No

cost(s).

Sd/­ (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

Ankit