Chattisgarh High Court
Bhagatram Deshmukh vs Chatur Singh on 23 February, 2023
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
SA No. 496 of 2019
Bhagatram Deshmukh S/o Chetanlal Deshmukh Aged About 60 Years R/o
Village Jhola, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Chatur Singh S/o Chetanlal Deshmukh Aged About 66 Years R/o House No.
301, Jawahar Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh
2. Uttara Kumar Deshmukh S/o Late Chetanlal Deshmukh Aged About 54 Years
R/o Village Jhola, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh
3. Makhanlal S/o Balkrishna Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Khada, Tahsil And
District Durg Chhattisgarh
4. Bhojram S/o Makhanlal Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Khada, Tahsil And
District Durg Chhattisgarh
5. Dushyant S/o Makhanlal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Khada, Tahsil And
District Durg Chhattisgarh
6. Harendra S/o Makhanlal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Khada, Tahsil And
District Durg Chhattisgarh
7. Lekhabai D/o Makhanlal Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Khada, Tahsil And
District Durg Chhattisgarh
8. Surjabai W/o Dayaram Deshmukh Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Birejhar,
Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh
9. Smt. Sujata Bai W/o Lal Ji Deshmukh Aged About 50 Years R/o Village
Mongri, Tahsil Gunderdeh, District Balod Chhattisgarh.
10. Dharmendra Kumar S/o Chatur Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o House
No.301, Jawahar Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.
11. Bhuneshwar S/o Chatur Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o House No.301,
Jawahar Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.
12. Smt. Neera Bai Deshmukh W/o Chatur Singh Deshmukh Aged About 50
Years R/o House No.301, Jawahar Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg
Chhattisgarh
13. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh.
(Defendants), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
23.02.2023 Shri R.K. Pali, counsel for the Appellant.
Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsel for Respondents No.1 and 10 to 12.
Shri Prasoon Agrawal, counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 9.
Shri Priyanshu Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/ Respondent No.13.
Heard on I.A.No.1/2019, an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for staying the effect and operation
of the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.04.2019 passed by the 2 nd
Additional District Judge to the Court of 1 st Additional District Judge, Durg(CG)
in Civil Appeal No.40/2017 and also praying that the respondents be restrained
from creating any third party interest pending decision of this appeal.
On the other hand, Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for respondents
No.1 and 10 to 12, while opposing the said application submits that he is only
claiming 1/6th share as per the decree granted by the Court below and submits
further that he is not going to alienate the property in question, therefore, the
application as filed deserves to be rejected.
Having considered the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the
parties, considering further the nature of the decree, which in fact is in favour of
the appellants granting 1/6th share with regard to the property in question
described in plaint Schedule 'A', therefore, the application as made by the
appellants to this effect appears to be rather misconceived in nature, and
therefore, I am not inclined to allow this application.
The application is accordingly, rejected.
It is, however, made it clear that if any transaction is made pending
decision of this appeal, the same would be governed by Section 52 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
I.A.No.1/2019, stands disposed of as well as I.A.No.5/2022, which is an
application for urgent hearing also stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge
sunita
