Kunwar Singh vs Ramcharan And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 572 Chatt

                            1

                                                      NAFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                    SA No.114 of 2012

      Kunwar Singh, aged about 60 years, S/o Late
       Ganesh Verma, R/o Village Kohrod, Tahsil
       Balodabazar, District Raipur (C.G.)

                                         ­­­­ Appellant

                         Versus

     1. Ramcharan, aged about 40 years

     2. Goverdhan, aged about 35 years

       Both S/o Mahetter Verma, R/o Koliha, Tahsil
       Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.)

     3. Mst. Firantin, Wd/o Bhagela Verma, aged
        about 75 years, R/o Village Paijani, Tahsil
        Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.)

     4. State of Chhattisgarh,      through   Collector,
        Raipur (C.G.)

                                        ­­­­ Respondents

For Appellant Mr. A. D. Kuldeep, Adv. For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr. B. M. Rao, Adv.

Hon'ble Justice Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

24/06/2021

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 27.01.2012

passed by the learned 2nd Additional District

Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.)

in Civil Appeal No.121­A/2011 affirming the

judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated

25.02.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge

Class­I, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur

(C.G.) in Civil Suit No.7A/2008, whereby the

learned Trial Court dismissed the suit

preferred by the appellant/plaintiff.

3. Mr. Kuldeep, learned counsel for the

appellant/plaintiff, would submit that the

concurrent finding recorded by both the

Courts below holding that the plaintiff is

not the son of Raminbai is a perverse

finding. As such, the appeal involves

substantial question of law for

determination and deserves to be admitted.

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

Dukalhin. She has two daughters Ramin and

Firantin. The plaintiff claims to be the son

are the sons of Firantin Bai, the defendant

No.3. The plaintiff filed a suit for

declaration of title, permanent injunction

and possession.

6. Both the Courts below after appreciation of

oral and documentary evidence available on

record clearly recorded a finding that the

plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the

son of Raminbai and therefore he could not

succeed to the property of Raminbai. The two

Courts below have clearly reached to the

conclusion that the plaintiff is not the son

of Raminbai, which is a pure and simple

finding of fact based on the material

available on record, which is neither

perverse nor contrary to law.

7. I do not find any substantial question of

law for determination in this second appeal.

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