Dukhi Bai vs Nandlal
2022 Latest Caselaw 3108 Chatt

                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                  FA No. 115 of 2018

• Dukhi Bai W/o Rupdhar Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Dongripali, P.H.No.9,
  R.I.C.-Pithora, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff), District :
  Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
                                                                              ---- Appellant
                                        Versus
1. Nandlal S/o Chandrika Prasad Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Dongripali, P.H.No.9,
   R.I.C.-Pithora, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District :
   Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
2. Sunderlal S/o Chandrika Prasad Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Dongripali,
   P.H.No.9, R.I.C.-Pithora, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh,
   District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
3. Ramlal S/o Chandrika Prasad Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Dongripali,
   P.H.No.9, R.I.C.-Pithora, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh,
   District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
4. Dulikeshan S/o Bodhram Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Dongripali,
   P.H.No.9, R.I.C.-Pithora, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh,
   District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
5. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Mahasamund,
   Chhattisgarh (Defendants), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh
                                                                          ---- Respondents

7-3

28-4-2022 Mr. G.D. Vaswani, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. B.P. Sharma and Ms. Anju Sharma, counsel for the

respondents.

Mr. Anil Sharma, PL for the State.

Heard on I.A.No. 1 of 2018, which is an application for stay of

effect and operation of the impugned decree.

This is first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25-

1-2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Mahaamund (CG) in

Civil Suit No. H-14-A/2014 by which the suit filed by the plaintiff has

been dismissed vide its order dated 25-1-2018 and the counter claim filed by the respondent has been allowed. Learned trial Court

while dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff has recorded a

finding that though in Ex.D/29, partition has been mentioned, but

from bear perusal of Ex.D/29, it is vivid that it is acknowledgment of

various persons who are in possession of the property, therefore, it

has recorded a finding that the defendants have received the

property from their parents which has been described in Ex.D/29

and accordingly it has dismissed the suit.

The issue to be examined by this court is whether the

property has been given to defendant No.1 on partition or not, is

evident from Ex.D/29 or not?. Therefore, to avoid further

complications in the matter, it is directed that the defendants No.1

and 3 shall not alienate the suit property till disposal of this appeal.

List this matter for final hearing in motion hearing stage in the

last week of July, 2022.

In view of the above I.A.No. 1 of 2018 stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Raju