Rambha Bai vs Vijay Kumar Verma
2023 Latest Caselaw 1061 Chatt

                                                   1



                       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                              Order Sheet

                                        S.A. No. 224 of 2022
       1. Rambha Bai W/o Khedu Ram Verma Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Datrengi, Tahsil
          Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.)
       2. Dilip, S/o Khedu Ram Verma Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Datrengi, Tahsil
          Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.)
       3. Anil, S/o Kheduram Verma, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Datrengi, Tahsil Bhatapara,
          District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.)
       4. Purushottam S/o Kheduram Verma Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Datrengi, Tahsil
          Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.)               ---- Appellants
                                                Versus
       1. Vijay Kumar Verma S/o Kheduram Verma, Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Datrengi,
          Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.)
       2. Vyasnarayan Verma, S/o Kheduram Verma Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Datrengi,
          Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.)
       3. Kaushal Bai, W/o Ravi Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bawali, Tahsil Pathariya,
          District Mungeli (C.G.)
       4. Shanti Bai, W/o Kundan Verma Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Nipaniya, Tahsil
          Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.)
       5. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Baloda Bazar District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara
          (C.G.)                                                                ---- Respondents

17.02.2023 Shri Bharat Lal Sahu, counsel for the Appellants.

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/Respondent No.5.

Heard on admission.

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

"Whether the finding of the Courts below disbelieving the due execution, attestation and validity of the deed of Will dated 04.07.1988 (Ex.D.-7) executed by Kheduram in favour of his sons, namely, Dilip (Defendant No.2), Anil (Defendant No.4) and

Purushottam (Defendant No.5) by disbelieving its attesting witness, namely, Kartik Ram (DW-3) and thereby held that it was not executed in accordance with the provision prescribed under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is perverse?"

Issue notice to respondents No.1 to 4 only on payment of P.F., as per rules.

Learned counsel for the Appellants is directed to supply the substantial question of

law as framed to the learned counsel for Respondent No.5/State within a period of 15 days

from today.

Also heard on I.A. No.01/2022, an application for staying the effect and operation of

the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2022 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge,

Balodabazar, Place, Bhatapara (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 04-A/2019, pending decision of

this appeal.

Issue notice on this application also to the said respondents, as above.

Meanwhile, purely as an interim measure, it is directed that the effect and operation

of the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2022 under appeal passed by Fourth Additional

District Judge, Balodabazar, Place, Bhatapara (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 04-A/2019 shall

remain stayed till the next date of hearing, subject to Appellants' furnishing security amount

of Rs.25,000/- before the concerned executing Court within a period of 60 days from today

for due performance of the decree ultimately to be passed by this Court.

Post this matter after five weeks for consideration on I.A. No. 01/2022.

Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

Nikita