Chattisgarh High Court
Krishna Kumar Gupta vs Durga Prasad Gupta on 21 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
FA No. 74 of 2021
1. Krishna Kumar Gupta S/o Late Thakurdin Gupta, Aged About 68
Years(wrongly mentioned as 65 years in cause title) R/o. Schoolpara Ward,
Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh
2. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, S/o Krishna Kumar Gupta, Aged About 44 Years(not
mentioned by plaintiffs in cause title) R/o. Schoolpara Ward, Baikunthpur,
District Korea Chhattisgarh
At present R/o Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh)
---- Appellants/Defendant Nos.1 & 2
Versus
1. Durga Prasad Gupta S/o Late Thakurdin Gupta, Aged About 60 Years R/o
Schoolpara Ward, Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh
2. Hetram Gupta, S/o Late Thakurdin Gupta, Aged About 58 Years R/o.
Schoolpara Ward, Baikunthpur, District Korea Chhattisgarh
3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Korea, District Korea Baikunthpur
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents/Plaintiffs
21/09/2021 Shri Bhaskar Payashi, counsel for the Appellants.
Shri Hari Agrawal, counsel for Respondent No.2, on Caveat.
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, P.L. for the State/Respondent
No.3.
Heard on I.A.No.2/2021, an application filed on 17.9.2021 under
Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 which has been filed after disposal of the earlier application of
similar nature decided on 15.9.2021.
Learned counsel for the Appellants submits that the trial Court,
without appreciating the registered deed of Power of Attorney executed
on 13.9.1985 (Ex.P-1), has erred in holding that the possession of the
suit land was not handed over to Defendant No.2-Ritesh Kumar Gupta
by his father Krishna Kumar Gupta (Defendant No.1), while executing
the registered deed of sale dated 26.3.2012/30.6.2012. It is contended
further that even without considering the documentary evidence, like
Ex.D1 to Ex.D5, which are the receipts issued by Aadim Jati Sewa
Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Dhouratikra, Village Janakpur, showing that the
Defendants are in possession over the disputed property, the trial Court
has erred in holding that they are not in possession over the suit land. It
is, therefore, contended that if the parties are not directed to maintain
the status quo with regard to the possession of the suit land and also in
respect of correction of the revenue papers, then in the said event, it
would cause an irreparable loss to the Appellants.
On the other hand, Shri Hari Agrawal, learned counsel appearing
for Respondent No.2, submits that after due consideration of the
contentions of the counsel for the parties, a similar kind of application,
marked as I.A.No.1/2021 was disposed of on 15.9.2021 with a direction
that none of the parties shall create third party interest with regard to
the property in question pending decision of this appeal, and therefore,
the application as made again while seeking the same relief, deserves
to be rejected.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant documents annexed with the said application carefully.
From perusal of the impugned judgment and decree, it appears
that a registered deed of sale dated 26.3.2012, registered on
30.6.2012, purported to have been executed by father-Krishna Kumar
Gupta in favour of his son- Ritesh Kumar Gupta, while acting as a
Power of Attorney holder dated 13.9.1985, was found to be null and
void as the same was executed much after the cancellation of the
alleged Power of Attorney on 03.01.1989. That apart, the Defendants
were not found in possession over the suit land as reflected from
paragraphs 33 and 34 of the impugned judgment and decree.
In view of the above, I am not inclined to entertain this
application, particularly, when on an earlier occasion, the application of
similar nature, marked as I.A.No.1/2021 was rejected on 15.9.2021.
The application, marked as I.A.No.2/2021 is accordingly,
rejected.
Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge
sunita
