Ramratan Andors vs Santosh Kumar Andors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7458 Chatt

                                         1

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                   Order Sheet

                             SA No.342 of 2016

            Ramratan and Others Versus Santosh Kumar and Others




12/12/2022          Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, counsel for appellants.

                    Shri   Tarkeshwar        Nande,   Panel   Lawyer   for   the
               State/respondent No.10.

Arguments heard on admission.

Judgment/order dictated in open Court, typed separately, signed and dated.

SD/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

Tumane

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

SA No. 342 of 2016

1. Ramratan S/o Ghasiram, Aged About 71 Years Caste- Biyar, R/o- Balodapara-Nagpura, Police Station And Tahsil- Baloda At Present Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

2. Bhagat Ram, S/o Ghasiram, Aged About 66 Years Caste- Biyar, R/o- Balodapara-Nagpura, Police Station And Tahsil- Baloda At Present Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

3. Kamlesh Kumar, S/o Late Ishwar Prasad Biyar Aged About 35 Years Caste- Biyar, R/o- Balodapara-Nagpura, Police Station And Tahsil- Baloda At Present Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

4. Vijay Laxmi, S/o Late Ishwar Prasad Biyar, Aged About 29 Years Caste- Biyar, R/o- Balodapara-Nagpura, Police Station And Tahsil- Baloda At Present Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

5. Kanti Kumar, S/o Late Ishwar Prasad Biyar, Aged About 25 Years Caste- Biyar, R/o- Balodapara-Nagpura, Police Station And Tahsil- Baloda At Present Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

6. Lallu, S/o Late Ishwar Prasad Biyar, Aged About 21 Years Caste- Biyar, R/o- Balodapara-Nagpura, Police Station And Tahsil- Baloda At Present Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

7. Kalicharan, S/o Ghasiram, Aged About 52 Years Caste- Biyar, R/o- Balodapara-Nagpura, Police Station And Tahsil- Baloda At Present Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh....... Plaintiffs, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

---- Appellants/Plaintiffs

Versus

1. Santosh Kumar S/o Roopram Gupta Aged About 53 Years R/o- Baloda, Police Station And Tahsil- Baloda, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh,, Chhattisgarh

2. Satish Kumar, S/o Roopram Gupta, Aged About 51 Years R/o- Baloda, Police Station And Tahsil- Baloda, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh

3. Mannu, S/o Roopram Gupta, Aged About 43 Years R/o- Baloda, Police Station And Tahsil- Baloda, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

4. Babloo Kumar, S/o Roopram Gupta, Aged About 36 Years R/o- Baloda, Police Station And Tahsil- Baloda, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh

5. Rajkumar, S/o Roopram Gupta, Aged About 34 Years R/o- Baloda, Police Station And Tahsil- Baloda, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh

6. Ramnath S/o Nanhuram Aged About 58 Years R/o- Jawalpurpara-Nagpura, Police Station And Tahsil- Baloda, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

7. Chintaram, S/o Nanhuram, Aged About 55 Years R/o- Jawalpurpara-Nagpura, Police Station And Tahsil- Baloda, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

8. Kripal Prasad, S/o Nanhuram, Aged About 51 Years R/o- Jawalpurpara-Nagpura, Police Station And Tahsil- Baloda, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

9. Mahipal, S/o Nanhuram, Aged About 47 Years R/o- Jawalpurpara-Nagpura, Police Station And Tahsil- Baloda, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

10. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Janjgir, Police Station, Tahsil, Civil And Revenue District Janjgri-Champa, Chhattisgarh....... Defandants, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

11. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector Janjgir, Police Station, Tahsil, Civil And Revenue District Janjgri-Champa, Chhattisgarh....... Defandants, District: Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents/Defendants

Present:-

Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, counsel for the appellants. Shri Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.10.

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board 12/12/2022

1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs under Section

100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the

"CPC"), questioning the legality and propriety of judgment and decree

dated 08.04.2016 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Janjgir,

District Janjgir-Champa in Civil Appeal No.37-A/2015, whereby the

appellate Court while affirming the judgment and decree dated

21.02.2012 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Akaltara, District Janjgir-

Champa in Civil Suit No.96-A/2011, has dismissed the appeal. Parties

shall be referred as per their descriptions before the trial Court.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs instituted

a suit claiming declaration of title and injunction by submitting inter alia

that the properties in question bearing Khasra No.3824/4, ad-

measuring 0.10 Acres and Khasra No.3824/6, ad-measuring 0.36

Acres, situated at Village Baloda, Patwari Halka No.14, Revenue Circle

and Tahsil Baloda were the ancestral properties. However, their father

Ghasiram, who was impleaded as defendant No.3 (his name has been

deleted vide order sheet dated 19.03.1999), had sold the same to the

original defendant No.1-Roopram Gupta without their consent and

therefore, the plaintiffs are not bound by the sale so executed by their

father in favour of said defendant.

3. The aforesaid claim has been contested by the defendants No.1

& 2 on the ground that the property in question has been purchased by

Roop Ram (Original defendant No.1, since deceased now represented

by his legal heirs) from said Ghasiram for a consideration of Rs.1,000/-

under the registered deed of sale, dated 07.10.1969, who sold the

same as Karta of the family for legal necessity and since the date of

purchase, he (defendant No.1) is in possession thereof. It is contested

further on the ground that without questioning the authenticity of the

alleged registered deed of sale, claim as made by the plaintiffs is,

therefore, not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

4. Defendant No.3-Ghasiram, while supporting the plaintiffs' claim,

has stated in his written statement that the alleged deed of sale was, in

fact, executed by him in favour of defendant No.1, who is the

moneylender, as he was in need of money and therefore, he sold the

said property as such in his favour nominally.

5. After considering the evidence led by the parties, the learned trial

Court vide its judgment and decree dated 21.02.2012 arrived at a

conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish the fact that the

property in question is the ancestral property and that by upholding the

alleged registered deed of sale, dated 07.10.1969 executed by

plaintiffs' father-Ghasiram in favour of defendant No.1-Roopram, has

dismissed the claim.

6. In an appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, it was observed by the

lower Appellate Court that the property in question is the ancestral

property, but since it was sold by the plaintiffs' father-Ghasiram for the

legal necessity of the family and therefore, it cannot be held to be a

forged document and accordingly, the findings as recorded by the Trial

Court has been affirmed.

7. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid findings, the instant appeal

has been preferred by the plaintiffs.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that the

lower Appellate Court despite arriving at a conclusion that the property

in question is the ancestral property, yet the alleged sale has been

upheld. It is contended further that since the property in question was

sold by the plaintiffs' father without their consent, as such, the Courts

below ought to have decreed the plaintiffs' claim in its entirety.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the

entire record carefully.

10. According to the averments made in the plaint, the property in

question is the ancestral property and without obtaining prior consent,

the father of the plaintiffs' namely Ghasiram had sold the same to

original defendant No.1-Roopram Gupta under the registered deed of

sale, dated 07.10.1969. It is, therefore, contended by the plaintiffs that

they are not bound by the same. It, however, appears from the perusal

of the alleged registered deed of sale (Ex.D-4) that the property in

question was sold by said Ghasiram as he wanted to repay the loan

amount and the lower appellate Court has, therefore held that it was

executed for the legal necessity. Pertinently to be noted here further

that the registered deed of sale (Ex.D-4) so executed by the plaintiffs'

father-Ghasiram was never questioned by him nor the same was

assailed by the plaintiffs here in the instant suit. What has been

pleaded by the plaintiffs that since the property in question is the

ancestral property, therefore, father alone had no right to alienate the

same as such. However, in absence of questioning the authenticity of

the alleged sale, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs are not bound by

the same. In view thereof, the Courts below have not committed any

illegality in upholding the alleged sale so executed by the plaintiffs'

father-Ghasiram in favour of original defendant No.1-Roopram Gupta.

11. Accordingly, I do not find any question of law much less

substantial question of law which arise for determination in this appeal.

The appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.

No order as to costs.

SD/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

Tumane