Rameshwar vs Mandawi
2022 Latest Caselaw 7437 Chatt

                       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                    Order Sheet

                                          SA No. 350 of 2020

        1. Rameshwar S/o Late Shri Shiromani Lal Mahato Aged About 70 Years By
           Caste Kunabi R/o Village - Goverdhanpur, P.S. - Chandoura, Tahsil And District
           - Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

        2. Girdhar S/o Late Shri Shiromani Lal Mahato Aged About 65 Years By Caste
           Kunabi R/o Village - Goverdhanpur, P.S. - Chandoura, Tahsil And District -
           Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

        3. Brijesh S/o Late Shri Ravishanker Aged About 38 Years By Caste Kunabi R/o
           Village - Goverdhanpur, P.S. - Chandoura, Tahsil And District - Surajpur
           Chhattisgarh.

        4. Madhusudan S/o Akshay Kumar Aged About 50 Years Mother Savitri Devi, By
           Caste Kunabi R/o Village - Goverdhanpur, P.S. - Chandoura, Tahsil And District
           - Surajpur Chhattisgarh.                                     ---- Appellants

                                           Versus

        1. Mandawi D/o Late Shri Shiromani Lal Mahato Aged About 52 Years R/o Village
           - Sondiha, Thana - Chandoura, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

        2. Ramgopal S/o Late Shri Shiromani Lal Mahato Aged About 68 Years R/o
           Village - Shirri Tahsil - Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur Ramanujganj
           Chhattisgarh.

        3. Madhuri Devi D/o Late Shri Chandrashekhar Aged About 48 Years W/o Girdhar
           Prasad, R/o Village Sgivri, Tahsil - Wadrafnagar, District - Balrampur-
           Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.

        4. Aparna Singh W/o Shri Kamlesh Singh Parmar Aged About 27 Years R/o
           Village And Tahsil - Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj
           Chhattisgarh.

        5. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Balrampur, District - Balrampur-
           ramanujganj Chhattisgarh.                                      --- Respondents

09.12.2022 Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the Appellants.

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, P.L. for the State/Respondent No.5. Heard on admission.

This appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

1. Whether finding of the lower Appellate Court disbelieving the deed of Ikrarnama/partition dated 03.05.1980 (Annexure D-1) on the ground that since the Revenue Papers were shown in joint names of the parties despite the execution of it, is perverse?

Issue notice to the Respondents, on payment of P.F., as per rules. Also heard on I.A. No.01/2020, an application filed under Order 41 rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for staying the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.02.2020 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Ramanujgan, District-Balrampur-Ramanujganj in Civil Appeal No.32-A/2016.

Let notice be issued on this application also to the Respondents, as above. Meanwhile, purely as an interim measure, it is directed that the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.02.2020 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj in Civil Appeal No.32-A/2016 shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing, subject to appellant's furnishing the security amount of Rs.25,000/- before the concerned Executing Court within the period of 45 days from today for due performance of the decree ultimately to be passed by this Court.

Post this matter after 5 weeks for consideration on I.A No.01/2020.

Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE

vivek