Devlal And Ors vs Ranjeet And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 661 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                          NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                   Second Appeal No.238 of 2012
  1. Devlal S/o. Subran, caste Panika, aged about 68 years,
  2. Ghuran (wrongly stated as             Puran),   S/o    Mohan,    caste
     Gond, aged about 65 years,
  3. Babai, S/o Shobha, caste Sahu, aged about 42 years,
    All are Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Amhar,
    Police Station Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District
    Korea (CG)
                                           ­­­­ Appellants/Defendants
                                  Versus
  1. Ranjeet S/o. Babai, Caste Kushwaha, aged about 68
     years, R/o Village Amhar, Police Station Patna, Tahsil
     Baikunthpur, District Korea (CG)
                                                           ­­­­ Plaintiff
  2. State   of   Chhattisgarh,            Through­Collector         Korea,
     District Korea (CG)
                                                       ­­­­ Respondents

For Appellants/Defendants:

Mr.A.K.Prasad, Advocate For Respondent No.1/Plaintiff:

Mr.Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State: Mr.Ravi Bhagat, Dy.G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 28.6.2021

1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken­up through

video conferencing.

2. Heard on admission and formulation of substantial

question of law in second appeal preferred by the

appellants / defendants.

3. By the impugned judgment and decree, the first

appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by

the appellants / defendants affirming the judgment and

decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit of the

plaintiff.

4. Mr.A.K.Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants /

defendants, would submit that both the Courts below

concurrently erred in holding that the plaintiff has

acquired title by gift deed executed by Sheshi Mani in

his favour on 4.12.1970 (Ex.P­6) and thereby he became

owner of the suit land, by recording a finding which is

perverse and contrary to record, as such, the appeal

involves substantial exhaustion of law for

determination.

5. The suit property was earlier held by Tapeshwar. After

his death, it was inherited by his widow Sheshi Mani

and Shesh Mani has executed a gift deed in favour of

plaintiff­Ranjit on 4.12.1970 (Ex.P­6) and as such, he

is in possession of the suit land. It is the case of

the defendants that Tapeshwar during his life time

executed a Will in favour of Shobhnath on 18.2.1969 and

in lieu of that, Shobhnath has taken loan from bank

which he has not repaid and in auction proceeding, the

suit land has been purchased by Biharilal and Biharilal

sold the suit land in favour of the defendants.

6. Both the Courts below have held that in earlier round

of litigation in Second Appeal No.242 of 1982 between

Shobhnath v. Ranjit, decided on 27.2.87 (Ex.P­7) it has

been held that the alleged Will executed by Tapeshwar

in favour of Shobhnath has been held to be invalid and

inoperative and also held that by that Will Shobhnath

has not got any right / interest in the suit property

and even alienation made by Biharilal, auction

purchaser and auction proceeding is held to be illegal

and as such, Biharilal has no right to alienate the

suit property in favour of the defendants on 18.4.94.

7. Both the Courts below have rightly held that Sheshi

Mani has executed gift deed in favour of the plaintiff

and he become title­holder by said gift deed as Will

executed by Tapeshwar in favour of Shobhnth and

subsequent auction proceeding in favour of Biharilal

has declared to be null and void in earlier round of

litigation by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in

Second Appeal No.242 of 1982, as such, I do not find

any illegality in the said finding and even I do not

find any substantial question of law for determination

of this second appeal.

8. Accordingly, the second appeal being without substance

is liable to be and is hereby dismissed in limine

without notice to other side.

Sd/­

(Sanjay K.Agrawal) Judge

B/­