Ramnandan vs Bharat And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 468 Chatt

                           1

                                                      NAFR

      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                  SA No. 97 of 2012

   Ramnandan     S/o   Ramkishun,     aged   about    51
    years, R/o Village Salwahi, P.S. Basantpur,
    Tah Wadrafnagar, Dist. Surguja C.G.

                                          ­­­­ Appellant

                        Versus

  1. Bharat, S/o Shivnandan, aged about 46 years;

  2. Mahavir, S/o Gulab, aged about 38 years;

  3. Parasnath, S/o Gulab, aged about 26 years;

  4. Atoriay, W/o Gulab, aged about 60 years;

  5. Moti, S/o Shivnandan, aged about 45 year;

    All are R/o Village Golra, Caste - Khairwar,
    P.S.     Basantpur,    Tahsil     -    Wadrafnagar,
    District - Surguja, C.G.

  6. State   of   Chhattisgarh,     through   Collector,
     Surguja, Ambikapur, C.G.

                                      ­­­­ Respondents

For Appellant :­ Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Adv. With Ms. Richa Dwivedi, Adv.

For Respondents No.1 to 5 :­ Mr. A.K. Prasad, Adv.

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

22/06/2021

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 / defendant.

3. By the impugned judgment, the first appellate

Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by

the defendant­Ramnandan affirming the judgment

and decree of the trial Court decreeing the

suit of the plaintiffs.

4. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellant /

defendant would submit that both the Courts

below have totally unjustified in decreeing

the suit of the plaintiffs holding that the

defendant has failed to prove the Will dated

12.04.1997 (Ex. D­8) executed by Chamaru in

favour of defendant No.1­Ramnandan by

recording a finding which is perverse to the

record and further unjustified in holding that

the plaintiffs have inherited the suit

property being legal heirs of Chamru.

5. The suit property was settled in favour of

Shivchand, he had one son Chamru and one

daughter Itwariya. Itwariya had three sons

& 3, are sons of Itwariya, whereas plaintiffs

No.2(A) to 2(C) are sons of Gulab and wife of

Gulab, filed a suit for declaration of title

and delivery of possession over the suit land

stating inter­alia that they are title holders

of the suit land as it was originally held by

Chamru, who died issueless and the suit

property has been inherited by Itwariya and

after death of Itwariya, the plaintiffs have

succeeded the suit property and Will dated

12.04.1997 (Ex. D­8) allegedly executed by

Chamru in favour of defendant No.1 is

suspicious Will and it has not been executed

in favour of defendant No.1­Ramnandan.

6. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral

documentary evidence available on record, by

its judgment and decree dated 11.03.2004,

decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs

have succeeded the suit property after death

of Chamru as he was original holder and after

death of Chamru, Itwariya has succeeded the

suit property and the plaintiffs being sons

and grandsons of Itwariya have inherited the

suit property and further held that Will

(Ex.D­8) is suspicious document and it has not

been proved in accordance with law though one

attesting witness namely Jagdishwar has been

examined before the trial Court. On appeal

being preferred by the appellant / defendant,

the first appellate Court has affirmed the

judgment and decree of the trial Court.

7. Two Courts below have concurrently recorded a

finding that after death of Shivchand, his son

Chamru and daughter Itwariya have succeeded

the suit property. Since Chamru has died

issueless, Itwariya would succeed the suit

property and after her death, the plaintiffs

have succeeded the suit property and

unregistered Will dated 12.04.1997 (Ex.D­8)

has not been proved in accordance with law as

it is suspicious document. Adequate reasons

have been assigned by two Courts below holding

the Will (Ex. D­8) has not been proved under

Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act,

1925 read with Section 68 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 and also sufficient reason

has been assigned in holding that Will (Ex. D­

8) is suspicious document.

8. The findings recorded by two Courts below

holding the plaintiffs to be title holders and

Will dated 12.04.1997 (Ex. D­8) is suspicious

document and it has not been proved in

accordance with law are findings of fact based

on evidence available on record, which are

neither perverse nor contrary to record, as

such, I do not find merit in this second

appeal and even I do not find any substantial

question of law for determination of this

second appeal.

9. Accordingly, the second appeal being devoid 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