Kangal Ram vs Nabbu Ram
2022 Latest Caselaw 3232 Chatt

                                     Page 1 of 3

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                     Order Sheet
                                 SA No. 61 of 2012
1.     Kangal Ram, S/o Late Hriday Ram, Aged About 47 Years Caste- Binjhiya.
2.     Tipu Ram Dead Through Lrs.
2-a - Bhuneshwari Bai, Wd/o Late Tipu Ram, Aged About 45 Years.
2-b - Moolchand Ram, S/o Late Tipu Ram, Aged About 28 Years.
2-c - Anand Kumar, S/o Late Tipu Ram, Aged About 21 Years.
2-d - Sunita Kumari, D/o Late Tipu Ram, Aged About 10 Years Minor Through
       Legal Guardian Appellant No.2-A,
       All are R/o Village Koriya, Tahsil Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.)
3.     Kondhi Dead Through Lrs.
3.1 - Kunu (Deleted) as per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 24-02-2021.
3.2 - Birsai, S/o Kunu, Aged About 40 Years.
3.3 - Jhoni Bai, Wd/o Chhattaram, Aged About 34 Years.
3.4 - Prasad Ram, S/o Kunu, Aged About 30 Years.
       All are R/o Village- Koriya, Tahsil- Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.)
4.     Dilas Bai, D/o Hriday Ram, Aged About 40 Years, Caste- Binjhiya, R/o
       Village- Kansapara, P.S. Jainagar, Tahsil- Surajpur, District- Surguja (C.G.)
                                                                         ---- Appellants
                                        Versus
1.    Nabbu Ram, S/o Late Dufar, Aged About 67 Years, Caste- Binjhiya.
2.    Sarvar, S/o Nabbu Ram, Aged About 44 Years, Caste- Binjhiya,
      All are R/o Village- Koreya, Tahsil- Surajpur, District- Surguja (C.G.)
3.    Dayaram Dead Through Lrs
      3-a - Keli Bai Wd/o Late Dayaram Aged About 70 Years
      3-b - Siman Ram S/o Late Dayaram Aged About 40 Years
      Both are R/o Village- Koriya, Tahsil- Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.)
4.    Karlo Dead Through Lrs.
      4.a - Ramuniya D/o Late Heera Sai Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village-
      Kandrai, Post- Kandrai, P.S.- Jainagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.)
      4.b - Dhanesari D/o Late Heera Sai Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village-
      Kandrai, Post- Kandrai, P.S.- Jainagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.)
      4.c - Naresh S/o Late Heera Sai Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village- Kandrai
      (Nevardand), P.S.- Jainagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.)
5.    Kadam Kumari D/o Late Dufar, Aged About 67 Years W/o Beersai, Caste
      Binjhiya, R/o Village Koreya, P.S. Jainagar (C.G.)
6.    Guleb (Died) Through Legal Heirs-
      6-a. Theparam, S/o Dhondha, Aged About 75 Years, Occupation- Cultivator.
      6-b. Geetaram, S/o Theparam, Aged About 48 Years, Occupation-Cultivator
      6-c. Kailash Ram, S/o Theparam, Aged About 45 Years, Occupation
                                       Page 2 of 3

     Cultivator,
     All are R/o Jainagar, Tahsil & District- Surajpur (C.G.)
7.   Birhuliya, D/o Late Dufar, Aged About 49 Years, W/o Thakur Ram, Caste-
     Binjhiya, R/o Village Koreya, Tahsil- Surajpur, District- Surguja (C.G.)
8.   The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur, District-
     Surguja (C.G.)
                                                                   ---- Respondents

04.05.2022 Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, counsel for the appellants.

Mr. A.N. Pandey, counsel for respondents No. 3-a, 3-b, 4-a, 4-b & 4-c.

Mr. Ravi Pal Maheshwari, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 8.

Heard on admission.

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned trial Court has committed illegality in allowing the application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act for permission to file secondary evidence by exhibiting photocopy of the Will. He would further submit that the Will has not been proved as per provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act.

The case is arguable and admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:-

"(1) Whether both the Courts below have erred in treating photocopy of the Will as secondary evidence ignoring the provisions of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act?

(2) Whether the learned Courts below were justified in holding that the Will has been proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 63 (c) of the Hindu Succession Act?"

Also heard on application for interim injunction/stay under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C.

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court affirmed by the First Appellate Court, shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

Accordingly, application for interim injunction/stay under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. stands disposed of.

List this case in second week of July, 2022 for final disposal at motion stage.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Arun