Anjor Bai vs (Deleted) Bhagatram @ Butaridas ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2540 Chatt

                                      Page 1 of 3

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                     Order Sheet
                                 SA No. 444 of 2012
     Anjor Bai, W/o Mahettar Ram Satnami, Aged About 55 Years Ward, No. 12,
     Bairagpara, Pandariya, Tahsil-Pandariya, P.O.-Pandariya, P.S. Pandariya,
     District- Kabirdham (C.G.)
                                                                       ---- Appellant
                                        Versus
1.   (Deleted) Bhagatram @ Butaridas (Dead) As Per Hon'ble Court Order dated
     02-08-2021.
2.   Rajendra Kumar, S/o Bhagatram, Aged About 31 Years.
3.   Jitendra, S/o Bhagatram, Aged About 29 Years.
4.   Gangadhar, S/o Bhagatram, Aged About 18 Years.
5.   Ratan Lal, S/o Bhagatram, Aged About 14 Years Minor, Through his father-
     Bhagatram, S/o Late Baniya.
6.   (Deleted) Tetki Bai @ Jagarmati (Dead) as per Hon'ble Court Order dated
     02-08-2021.
     All respondent No. 1 to 6 are R/o Village- Bijabhata, Tahsil- Pandariya,

Ramnagar Ward No. 1, P.S.- Pandariya, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.)

7. Smt. Santoshi Bauddha, W/o Rajesh Bauddha, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village- Dhauraband, P.S. Pipariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.)

8. State of Chhttisgarh, through Collector, Kabirdham (C.G.)

---- Respondents

20.04.2022 Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Ravi Pal Maheshwari, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 8.

Heard on admission.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned trial Court has granted decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants directing for partition of ancestral property mentioned at Schedule-A of the plaint by recording finding that the partition has not been taken place in the family. Against this, an appeal has

been preferred by the defendants which has been allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kabirdham vide order dated 16.10.2012 in Civil Appeal No. 110A/2012. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the First Appellate Court, the instant second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff under Section 100 of the C.P.C. for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court.

He would further submit that the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court is contrary to the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma and others Vs. Rakesh Sharma reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 wherein it has been held at paragraph 137 that the partition which has been done prior to year 2004 and any partition which has been done in pursuance of the judgment passed by the trial Court is permissible and rest of the direction has not been taken into consideration.

The case is arguable and admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:-

"(1) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the finding recorded by the trial Court regarding partition of the property ignoring the fact that the daughter is also co-parcener in the joint family property and she are entitled to get her share?"

Also heard on I.A. No. 01, application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction or appropriate order.

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and also considering the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma (Supra), the effect and operation of the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 stands disposed of.

Issue notice to the respondents (except respondents No. 1 & 6 as they have deleted) by ordinary course as well as by registered mode within a week.

Process fee be paid within a week.

Registry is directed to send copy of this order to the respondents along with the notice issued to them.

List this case after six weeks.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Arun