Smt. Karuna Bai vs Parobulin
2022 Latest Caselaw 7593 Chatt

                                          1

                                                                              NAFR

           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                SA No. 39 of 2019

   1. Smt. Karuna Bai Wd/o Raghunandan Aged About 32 Years R/o Village
      Gatoura, Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur,
      Chhattisgarh

   2. Ritesh Kumar ( Minor ) S/o Raghunandan Aged About 12 Years Through
      Natural Guardian Mother Karunabai Wd/o Raghunandan, R/o Village
      Gatoura, Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur,
      Chhattisgarh                          ---- Appellants/Defendants No. 1 & 2

                                      Versus

   1. Parobulin D/o Heera Aged About 52 Years Caste Kurmi, R/o Village
      Gatoura, Tahsil- Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur,
      Chhattisgarh

   2. Tijiya Bai D/o Heera Aged About 47 Years Caste- Kurmi, R/o Village
      Gatoura, Tahsil- Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur,
      Chhattisgarh

   3. Pushpa Bai D/o Heera Aged About 40 Years Caste- Kurmi, R/o Village
      Gatoura, Tahsil- Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur,
      Chhattisgarh

   4. Sunita D/o Heera Caste- Kurmi, R/o Village Gatoura, Tahsil- Masturi,
      District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiffs)

   5. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur,
      Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

   6. Tijram Kewat S/o Hiccheuram Kewat Aged About 50 Years R/o Village
      Karra, P.O. Darraghat, Tahsil- Masturi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,
      District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

   7. Kejhin Bai Wd/o Heera, R/o Village Karra, P.O. Darrighat, Tahsil- Masturi,
      District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
      (Defendants No. 4 to 6)                               ---- Respondents

(Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellants : Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate along with Smt. Prabha Sharma appears along with the Appellants.

For Respondents 1 to 4 : Shri Shailesh Puriya, Advocate appears along

For Respondent 5/State : Shri Ravipal Maheshwari & Shri Priyanshu Gupta, Panel Lawyers.

For Respondent 6           :    None, though served.
For Respondent 7           :    Appeared in person.



                     Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

                                Judgment on Board
15.12.2022

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Defendants 1 & 2 under Section

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

questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated

24.10.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No.33/2014 by the Third Additional District

Judge, Bilaspur (CG), whereby the learned appellate Court, while reversing the

judgment and decree dated 25.04.2014 passed by the 4 th Civil Judge, Class-2,

Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 32-A/2013, has decreed the Plaintiffs' claim. Parties of

this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the Court

below

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Plaintiffs instituted a suit

claiming declaration of title, partition and separate possession with regard to the

plaint Schedule "A & B" properties by submitting, inter alia, that the property in

question was the ancestral property, which was obtained by their predecessor-in-

interest, namely, Heera, from his father Raru by way of inheritance. It is pleaded

further that since the property is the ancestral property, therefore, the registered

deed of sale dated 31.05.2008 as executed by Defendant No.1 - Smt. Karuna

Bai, widow of Raghunandan (son of said Heera), in favour of Defendant No.5-

Tijram Kewat, was null and void and would not confer any right, title or interest

upon him.

3. The aforesaid claim was contested by Defendants and the trial Court, vide

its judgment and decree dated 25.04.2014, has dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim by

observing, inter alia, that the property in question described in plaint Schedule "A

& B" are the self-acquired property of Heera, predecessor-in-interest of the

Plaintiffs and, held further that since the property bearing Kh.No.153/31

admeasuring 0.809 hectares was obtained by Defendant No.1 - Smt. Karuna

Bai, wife of Raghunandan, in partition, and therefore, the registered deed of sale

as executed by her (Smt. Karuna Bai) on 31.05.2008 in favour of Defendant No.5

- Tijram Kewat cannot be held to be null and void.

4. The aforesaid finding of the trial Court has been reversed by the lower

appellate Court in an appeal preferred by the Plaintiffs and while reversing the

finding, it was held that said Heera, predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiffs, had

contacted second marriage with Defendant No.6 - Kejhin Bai after the death of

his first wife, and therefore, Kejhin Bai is also entitled to obtain a share with

regard to the property in question.

5. Being aggrieved, the Defendants No. 1 & 2 have preferred this appeal,

which has been admitted for hearing vide order dated 18.02.2020 while framing

the substantial question of law, which reads as under :-

"Whether the first appellate Court is justified in granting share to defendant No.6-Kejhin Bai (second wife of Heera) as by virtue of Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, second wife is not entitled and only an illegitimate child is entitled for share in the property of their parents, by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to record?"

6. From perusal of the record, it appears that the lower appellate Court, after

considering the evidence led by the parties, arrived at a conclusion that since

predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiffs, namely, Heera had contacted second

marriage with said Kejhin Bai, Defendant No.6, after the death of his first wife,

therefore, being class-1 heir, she is also entitled to inherit the property left by the

said Heera. Since the predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiffs had married with

Defendant No.6 - Kejhin Bai after the death of his first wife, therefore, the lower

appellate Court has not committed any illegality in granting share to her also

along with other co-sharers of him. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is

answered by holding that said Kejhin Bai (Defendant No.6) is also entitled to

inherit the property in question.

7. Be that as it may, during the pendency of this appeal, the Appellants and

the legal heirs of said Heera, have arrived at a compromise and have settled their

dispute amicably and they, i.e., the Appellants and Respondents No. 1 to 4 and 7

have moved an application (I.A.No.01/2022) as required under Order 23 Rule 3

of CPC praying for passing the decree in terms of the deed of compromise dated

26.09.2022 while furnishing the same as Annexure A/5. Since the parties have

arrived at a compromise and have recorded their statements before the

Additional Registrar (J), as directed by this Court on 10.11.2022 in accordance

with said compromise deed, therefore, I am inclined to dispose of this appeal

based upon the said deed of compromise as recorded.

8. Considering the statements of all the legal heirs of said Heera,

predecessor-in-interest of the parties, vis-a-vis, the deed compromise dated

26.09.2022, it is directed that the shares be allotted to the parties as per the said

deed of compromise, which shall be the part of the decree. It is made clear that

since by virtue of the alleged deed of compromise, Defendant No.6 - Kejhin Bai

has not obtained any share, therefore, the Appellants, i.e., Smt. Karuna Bai and

Ritesh Kumar based upon their statements are directed to take care and maintain

her throughout her entire life, which shall also be the part of decree. It is also

made clear that the parties shall be bound by the registered deed of sale dated

31.05.2008 as executed by Smt. Karuna Bai in favour of Defendant No.5 - Tijram

Kewat with regard to the property bearing Kh.No.153/31 admeasuring 0.809

hectares, which shall also be the part of the decree.

9. It is directed further that the Appellants - Smt. Karuna Bai and Ritesh

Kumar shall hand over the possession of property in question to Plaintiffs No. 1 to

4, namely, Parobulin, Tijiya Bai, Pushpa Bai and Sunita, within a period of 30

days from today and, which shall also be the part of the decree.

10. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is accordingly disposed of.

A decree be drawn accordingly.

Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

Anjani

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Sheet, SA No. 39 of 2019 Smt. Karuna Bai Versus Parobulin

15.12.2022 Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal Advocate along with Smt.

Prabha Sharma appears along with the Appellants.

Shri Shailesh Puriya, counsel appears along with

respondents No. 1 to 4.

Shri Ravipal Maheshwari and Shri Priyanshu Gupta, Panel

Lawyers for respondent No.5/State.

None for respondent No.6, though served.

Respondent No.7 appeared in person.

Heard.

Judgment dictated in open Court. Signed and dated

separately.

Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

Anjani