Gajadhar Deadthr. Lrs vs Ramsharan And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 432 Chatt

                              1

                                                          NAFR

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                   SA No.58 of 2012

    Gajadhar (died) through LRs

  1. Smt. Kaushilya Bai, aged 55 years, W/o Late
     Gajadhar

  2. Rani Bai, aged 35 years, D/o Late Gajadhar

  3. Anjana, aged 30 years, D/o Late Gajadhar

  4. Ashish, aged 25 years, S/o Late Gajadhar

  5. Prahlad, aged 16 years, at present 19 years,
     S/o Gajadhar

    All   are   R/o   Village    Gorakpur,              Tahsil
    Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

                                             ­­­­ Appellant

                         Versus

  1. Ramsharan,   aged   68       years,   S/o   Late   Mangal
     Prasad

  2. Smt. Ramrati, aged 65 years, W/o Laxman Prasad

  3. Suresh   Prasad,    aged      35   years,   S/o    Laxman
     Prasad

    All   are   R/o   Village  Gorakhpur,               Tahsil
    Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

  4. State of Chhattisgarh through the District
     Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

                                           ­­­­ Respondents

For Appellants Mr. Somnath Verma, Advocate

Hon'ble Justice Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

21/06/2021

1. Heard on admission and formulation of

substantial question of law in this second

appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff.

2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the First

Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal

preferred by the appellant/plaintiff vide

judgment and decree dated 23.09.2011 passed by

the learned Additional District Judge, Pendra

Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal

No.14A/2011 affirming the judgment and decree

of the Trial Court dated 31.07.2009 passed by

the learned Civil Judge Class­I, Pendra Road,

District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit

No.141A/2005, whereby the learned Trial Court

dismissed the suit preferred by the

appellant/plaintiff.

3. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the

appellant/plaintiff, would submit that both

the Courts below have grossly erred in

concurrently holding that the suit land is the

ancestral property of Mangal Prasad and only

on that basis, it cannot be held that the

appellant has no right and title over the suit

property by recording a finding perverse to

the record. As such, the appeal be admitted

for hearing by formulating substantial

question of law.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the

appellant, considered his submissions made

herein­above and also went through the records

with utmost circumspection.

5. The suit property was originally held by

Mangal Prasad. He had three sons namely

Gajadhar, Ramsharan and Laxman. The appellants

are the legal representatives (wife and

children) of Gajadhar. The defendant No.1 is

the brother of Gajadhar, whereas the defendant

Nos.2 & 3 are the wife and son, respectively,

of Laxman. Mangal sold the suit property to

defendant No.1 Ramsharan by way of sale deed

dated 17.03.1971, in which Gajadhar stood as

attesting witness. The original plaintiff

Gajadhar filed a suit for declaration of title

on 12.05.2003 with respect to the suit land,

in which it is the stand of the defendant No.1

that his father Mangal has alienated the suit

land and he has purchased the suit land from

his father by way of registered sale deed

dated 17.03.1971, in which Gajadhar himself

stood as attesting witness.

6. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral

and documentary evidence available on record

dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by holding

that the suit property is held by defendant

No.1, who has purchased the same from his

father Mangal by way of registered sale deed

dated 17.03.1971, in which the original

plaintiff Gajadhar himself stood as the

attesting witness and interest, if any, has

already been surrendered by the plaintiff and

there is no right or title over the suit land

and even the plaintiff did not seek

cancellation of the sale deed dated

17.03.1971. The judgment and decree of the

Trial Court has also been affirmed by the

First Appellate Court in the appeal preferred

by the appellant/plaintiff, against which this

second appeal has been preferred.

7. The finding recorded by the two Courts below

that Mangal has already sold the suit property

to defendant No.1 and Gajadhar himself stood

as the attesting witness is a finding of fact

based on the material available on record,

which is neither perverse nor contrary to the

record.

8. I do not find any substantial question of law

for determination in this second appeal so

preferred by the appellant/plaintiff. 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