Janakdhari Kushwaha vs Smt. Kunti Devi
2022 Latest Caselaw 4910 Chatt

                                           1

                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                    Order Sheet
                                SA No. 244 of 2016
      • Janakdhari Kushwaha, S/o Heera Kushwaha, Aged about 40 years, R/o
        Village Raikera, P.S. and Post Sitapur, Civil and Revenue District Surguja
        Chhattisgarh.                                             ---- Appellant
                                      Versus
  1. Smt. Kunti Devi, D/o Late Ramlal, W/o Banwari Koer, Aged about 45 years,
  2. Smt. Kamla Devi, D/o Late Ramlal, W/o Rampyare Koer, Aged about 38
     years,
  3. Prayag, S/o Late Ramavtar, Aged About 60 years,
  4. Aniruddha, S/o Late Ramavtar, Aged about 40 years,
  5. Vrinda, D/o Late Ghantaram, Aged about 45 years,
  6. Kamleshwari, D/o Late Ramavtar, Aged about 65 years,
  7. Premchand, S/o Late Ramprasad, Aged about 35 years,
  8. Munia, D/o Late Ramprasad, Aged about 37 years,
  9. Yashoda, W/o Late Ramprasad, Aged about 70 years,
        Respondents No.1 to 9 are R/o Village Raikera, P.S. Sitapur, Civil and

Revenue District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

10. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector Surguja, Ambikapur, P.S. and P.O.

Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

01/08/2022 Ms. Priyanka Mehta, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, P.L. for the State/respondent No.10.

Heard on admission.

Perused the judgments of both the Courts below and also

gone through the evidence adduced by counsel for both the parties before the trial Court.

On due consideration, the appeal is admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law:-

"(A) Whether, the finding of the learned lower Appellate Court that respondent No.1/appellant herein is not bonafide purchaser, is perverse on state of evidence?

(B) Whether, finding recorded by learned lower Appellate Court that in earlier partition, land in question was fallen in share of Ramlal, is based on misinterpretation of document i.e. Exhibit D/10 order of Tehsildar, Sitapur dated 29.01.1997?"

Issue notice to respondents except the State/respondent No.10 along with the copy of the substantial questions of law.

Also heard on application (I.A.01) under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908.

Issue notice to respondents except the State/respondent No.10 also on this application.

P.F. be paid within a week.

In the meantime, both the parties are directed to maintain the status quo of the suit property till the next date of hearing.

List this case after six weeks.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Vasant