Laxmi Prasad vs Rajkumari Dewangan
2023 Latest Caselaw 668 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                      NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                               SA No. 158 of 2017
   1. Laxmi Prasad S/o Late Jaitram, Aged About 32 Years R/o Village
      Akaltara, P.S. Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh,
      Chhattisgarh
   2. Kirtan Prasad S/o Late Jaitram, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village
      Akaltara, P.S. Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh,
      District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
   3. Rajendra Kumar S/o Late Jaitram, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village
      Akaltara, P.S. Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
   4. Narendra Kumar S/o Late Jaitram, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village
      Akaltara, P.S. Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
   5. Ramashankar S/o Late Jaitram, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village
      Akaltara, P.S. Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
                                                           ---- Appellants
                                  Versus
   1. Rajkumari Dewangan W/o Harnarayan, Aged About 39 Years R/o
      Village Akaltara, P.S. Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa,
      Chhattisgarh ..................Plaintiff
   2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, District Janjgir-Champa,
      Chhattisgarh .........Defendant No.6.                ---- Respondents

For Appellants: Shri Vaibhav P.Shukla, Advocate. For the State/Respondent No.2 Shri Tarkeshwar Nande, P.L.

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J

Judgment/Order On Board

01.02.2023 Heard on admission.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendants under Section 100 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, questioning the legality and

propriety of the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2017 passed in Civil

Appeal No.14-A/2015, whereby, the learned Appellate Court, while

affirming the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2015 passed by the

Civil Judge Class-I, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, in Civil Suit

No.06-A/2011, has dismissed the appeal. The parties to this appeal

shall be referred hereinafter as per their descriptions before the Courts

below.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a suit for declaration of title

and injunction was instituted by the plaintiff-Rajkumari Dewangan, with

regard to the property in question bearing khasra No.1655/3 and 1655/4

admeasuring 0.03 acre and 0.02 acre respectively, which are situated

at village Akaltara, Tahsil and District Janjgir Champa. According to the

plaintiff, the property in question was purchased by her under the

registered deed of sale dated 12.12.2008, purported to have been

executed by one Netram while putting her in possession thereof.

Further contention of the plaintiff is that after purchasing the property in

question as such, she applied for mutation before the Tahsildar, Janjgir,

however, an objection was raised by the defendants therein and based

upon their objection, the said authority vide its order dated 04.05.2010

(Ex.D-2) has directed the plaintiff to implead them as parties in order to

consider the said mutation proceedings. It is pleaded further that after

passing of the said order, i.e., order dated 04.05.2010 the defendants

are trying to interfere her peaceful possession, therefore, she has been

constrained to institute the suit in the instant nature.

3. While contesting the aforesaid claim, it was pleaded by the defendants

that the property in question was recorded in joint names of Netram and

their father, namely, Jaitram, who in partition, which was effected 57

years ago, has obtained the said property and, they are continuously in

possession for over more than 12 years and have acquired their

interest by way of adverse possession and said Netram was not

competent to sale the suit land as such to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's

claim is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

4. What is, therefore, reflected from the pleading of the parties that the

property in question bearing khasra No. 1655/3 and 1655/4, total

admeasuring 0.05 acres situated at the said village was purchased by

the plaintiff-Rajkumari Dewangan under the registered deed of sale

dated 12.12.2008 (Ex.P-1) and, the recitals made therein would show

that the possession of the land in question was delivered to her. It

appears further that when the registered deed of sale was executed as

such, the Revenue Papers like Kistbandi Khatauni, (B-1) for the year

2007-08 and Khasra Panchsala for the year 2008-09 were attached

with it, which apparently shown to be the name of said vendor i.e.,

Netram. It, thus, appears that when the property in question was sold

by said Netram, it was recorded in his name alone.

5. In so far as the objection raised by the defendants in their written

statement that the property in question had fallen in share of their

predecessor-in-interest, namely, Jaitram is concerned, the defendants

have, however, failed to produce any document in order to establish the

said fact. Therefore, It can not be said that the vendor of the plaintiff,

i.e., Netram, was not competent to alienate the property in question to

her, as claimed by the defendants.

6. In view of the aforesaid background, the Courts below upon due and

proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, have rightly

arrived at a conclusion that the property in question was purchased by

the plaintiff under the registered deed of sale dated 12.12.2008 and, I

therefore, do not find any infirmity in the same so as to call for any

interference in this appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit is

accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself.

No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE vivek