Bharat Prasad Pandey vs Punia Bai
2022 Latest Caselaw 2538 Chatt

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                   SA No. 171 of 2017
     1. Bharat Prasad Pandey S/o Deendayal, Aged About 80 Years R/o Village Achhoti,
        Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh

     2. Sarojni Bai W/o Bharat Prasad Pandey, Aged About 76 Years R/o Village
        Bahunavagaon,    Police   Station    and     Tahsil   Bemetara,   District   Bemetara,
        Chhattisgarh,

     3. Vyas Narayan Pandey S/o Bharat Prasad Pandey, Aged About 59 Years R/o Village
        Bahunavagaon,    Police   Station    and     Tahsil   Bemetara,   District   Bemetara,
        Chhattisgarh,

     4. Pramod Pandey S/o Bharat Prasad Pandey, Aged About 56 Years R/o Village
        Bahunavagaon,    Police   Station    And     Tahsil   Bemetara,   District   Bemetara,
        Chhattisgarh                                             ---- Appellants/Defendants

                                            Versus
1.      Punia Bai D/o Late Budhram, Aged About 44 Years Profession Housewife, R/o
        Village Bahunavagaon, Police Station And Tahsil Bemetara, District Bemetara,

2.      Punia Bai D/o Late Budhram, Aged About 44 Years Profession Housewife, R/o
        Village Bahunavagaon, Police Station And Tahsil Bemetara, District Bemetara,
        Chhattisgarh,

3.      Rajesh S/o Late Budhram, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Bahunavagaon, Police
        Station And Tahsil Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara,
        Chhattisgarh

4.      Darbari S/o Pusau, Aged About 59 Years Profession Agriculturist, R/o Village
        Bahunavagaon,    Police   Station    And     Tahsil   Bemetara,   District   Bemetara,
        Chhattisgarh,

5.      State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Bemetara, District Bemetara,
        Chhattisgarh

                                                                      -----------Respondents

20.04.2022 Mr. Shivansh Pandey, Advocate for the Appellants.

Mr. T.N. Nande, PL for the State/respondent No.5.

Counsel for the appellants would submit that the Will (Ex.P-2) has been executed by Sitaram in favour of Bharatram on 01.01.1984, the first appellate Court has recorded a finding that Sitaram has no right to execute the will as no evidence was adduced to prove that the partition has taken place. He would further submit that the plaintiff was proceeded ex-parte and there was no evidence to rebut the contention raised by them still the first appellate Court has reversed the finding.

The appeal is arguable and admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law;-

1."Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on the count that deceased Sitram has no right to executed the will in favour of Bharat Prasad on 01.01.1984.

2. Whether the findings recorded by both the Courts below that the Will has been executed as per the provisions of Section 68 of the Evidence Act and section 63 of the Succession Act 1955.?

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF by ordinary as well as registered mode.

PF be paid within 10 days.

Let status quo as it exists today in respect of the suit property be maintained between the parties till the next date of hearing.

A copy of this order along with notice be sent to the respondents.

List this case for further hearing after six weeks.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Santosh