Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Devki Bai Sahu vs Premlal Sahu on 8 February, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
SA No. 485 of 2017
1. Smt. Devki Bai Sahu Wd/o Late Shri Guhriram Sahu, Aged About 66 Years
R/o Village Sirri, P. S. And Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.,
Chhattisgarh
2. Bhagwat Sahu, S/o Late Shri Guhriram Sahu, Aged About 41 Years R/o
Village Badikareli, P. S. And Tahsil Magarlod, Civil And Revenue District
Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
3. Nand Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Guhriram Sahu, Aged About 39 Years R/o
Village Badikareli, P. S. And Tahsil Magarlod, Civil And Revenue District
Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
4. Smt. Bhagwati Sahu W/o Shri Manohar Sahu, D/o Late Shri Guhriram
Sahu, R/o Village Khorpa, P. S. And Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh....Plaintiffs. ---- Appellants/Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Premlal Sahu S/o Late Shri Guhriram Sahu, Aged About 47 Years R/o
Village Morikhurd, P. S. And Tahsil Kurud, Civil And Revenue District
Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
2. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, District Dhamtari
Chhattisgarh....Defendants., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Appellants :Shri H.B.Agrawal, learned Sr.Advocate appears
along with Smt. Swati Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondent 1 :Ms. Prachi Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent 2/State :Shri Priyanshu Gupta, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
Judgment/Order On Board
08.02.2023
Heard on admission.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, questioning the legality and propriety of the
judgment and decree dated 10.07.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge
(F.T.C.), Dhamtari (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.13-A/2017, whereby, the learned
appellate Court, while affirming the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2017
passed by the Civil Judge, Class-1, Kurud in Civil Suit No.322-A/2012, has
dismissed the appeal. The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as
per their descriptions before the Court below
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a suit for declaration of title and
injunction was made by the plaintiffs by submitting, inter alia, that the property in
question bearing Kh.No.122/1 admeasuring 0.757 hectares and Kh.No.192/1
admeasuring 0.093 hectares, total admeasuring 0.850 hectares situated at village
Hasda, Tahsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari was the ancestral property in the hands
of one Guhriram Sahu, who had given the same to plaintiff No.2 - Bhagwat and
plaintiff No.3 - Nandkumar and accordingly, the revenue papers were mutated in
their names. Likewise, the property in question bearing Kh.No.445/4
admeasuring 0.198 hectares, Kh.No.445/6 admeasuring 0.178 hectares and
Kh.No.456/8 admeasuring 0.069 hectares, total admeasuring 0.445 hectares
situated at village Karelibadi, Tahsil Magarlod, District Dhamtari, was also the
ancestral property and which was got to be recorded in the name of plaintiff No.1
- Devki Bai by said Guhriram Sahu owing to love and affection. Further
contention of the plaintiffs is that the property bearing Kh.No.456/3 admeasuring
0.028 hectares, Kh.No.760/2 admeasuring 0.190 hectares and Kh.No. 760/4
admeasuring 0.097 hectares, total admeasuring 0.315 hectares was given to
defendant No.1 - Premlal in oral partition by said Guhriram Sahu. According to
the plaintiffs, the mother of defendant No.1, namely, Bhagwati Bai was the first
wife of said Guhriram Sahu and after her death, the marriage of Devki Bai, plaintiff
No.1, was solemnized with said Guhriram Sahu, therefore, she and the children
born from their wedlock are entitled to be the owner of the property in question as
described in plaint para 4 'a' and 4 'b'. It is pleaded further that the revenue
entries as made in their favour were set aside by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kurud
in an appeal preferred by defendant No.1 - Premlal, therefore, they have been
constrained to institute the suit in the instant nature.
3. While contesting the aforesaid claim and that by submitting a counter
claim, it is pleaded by defendant No.1 - Premlal that said Devki Bai was neither
the legally wedded wife of his father Guhriram Sahu nor her marriage was
solemnized with him after the death of his mother Bhagwati Bai. According to
him, said Devki Bai was brought by his father during the lifetime of his mother as
his concubine, therefore, neither she nor her children are entitled to claim as such
over the said ancestral properties and, instead he (defendant No.1) alone is
entitled to be declared the owner of the same.
4. What is, therefore, reflected from the pleadings made by the parties that
the property in question was admittedly the ancestral properties in the hands of
said Guhriram Sahu. According to the plaintiffs, marriage of Devki Bai with him
(Guhriram Sahu) was solemnized after the death of said Bhagwati Bai, therefore,
she has acquired the status of legally wedded wife and entitled to claim over the
property in question as described in plaint para 4 'a' and 4 'b'. The burden to
establish the said fact is, therefore, upon the plaintiffs, however, from a bare
perusal of the statement of P.W.1 - Devki Bai, particularly, para 15 of her
testimony would reveal the fact that she was not aware as to when her marriage
was solemnized with said Guhriram Sahu nor has stated anywhere that her
marriage was solemnized with him only after the death of said Bhagwati Bai, who
was admittedly his legally wedded wife. P.W.2 - Chintamani was the villager and
he is also not aware that when the marriage of Guhriram Sahu was solemnized
with Devki Bai. He has also not stated that the alleged marriage was solemnized
after the death of said Bhagwati Bai. Besides, a bare perusal of the statement of
D.W.2 - Ramnarayan, who is the cousin of said Guhriram would, however, show,
as reflected from para 11 of his testimony, that said Devki Bai was his concubine.
In view of the evidence led by the parties, it is difficult to hold that Devki Bai has
acquired the status of legally wedded wife of said Guhriram Sahu as claimed by
them.
5. Since the property in question was admittedly found to be the ancestral
properties, therefore, said Devki Bai would not be entitled to claim any interest
over it. But the plaintiff No.2 (Bhagwat), plaintiff No.3 (Nandkumar) and plaintiff
No.4 (Bhagwati Bai) who are born from their wedlock would certainly entitle to get
the interest of said Guhriram Sahu with equal interest of 1/4th share each, along
with the said defendant. Therefore, if the notional partition is taken into
consideration with regard to the ancestral properties, then in the said event, both
Guhriram Sahu and his son Premlal would inherit half share each on it and, the
said half interest of Guhriram would be devolved further in equal share to all his 4
children, i.e., plaintiffs 2 to 4 and defendant 1 and, thus, they would be entitled to
get 1/8th share each of his interest. Accordingly, the plaintiffs No.2 to 4 would be
entitled to inherit total 3/8th share of said Guhriram's interest, while Premlal -
defendant No.1 would be entitled to get total 5/8 th share of the property in
question. Consequently, I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the Courts
below so as to call for any interference in this appeal.
6. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed at the
admission stage itself.
No order as to costs. Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge
Anjani
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet,
SA No.485 of 2017
Smt. Devki Bai & Ors. Vs. Premlal and Anr.
08.02.2023 Shri H.B.Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appears along
with Smt. Swati Agrawal, counsel for the appellants.
Ms. Prachi Singh, counsel for respondent No.1.
Shri Priyanshu Gupta, P.L for the State/respondent No.2.
Arguments heard on admission.
Judgment/Order dictated in open Court. Signed and dated
separately.
Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge
Anjani
