Chattisgarh High Court
Dileshwar vs Budhwar Singh on 9 February, 2023
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
SA No. 566 of 2022
1. Dileshwar S/o Late Janakram Aged About 26 Years Caste- Kanwar, R/o Village
Dumarghat, Tahsil Kunni, District : Surguja, Chhattisgarh
2. Kamlesh S/o Late Janakram Aged About 24 Years Caste- Kanwar, R/o Village
Dumarghat, Tahsil Kunni, District : Surguja , Chhattisgarh
3. Bharti S/o Late Pitamber Aged About 23 Years Caste Kanwar, R/o Village Sohaga,
Post Karji, Junapara, District : Surguja, Chhattisgarh
4. Rajkumar Kanwar S/o Late Cheturam @ Mahettar Aged About 32 Years Caste-
Kanwar, R/o Village Jampara Ward No.5, Katghora, Tahsil Katghora, District :
Korba, Chhattisgarh
5. Smt. Chaiti Bai W/o Malkhepuri, D/o Late Rupsai Aged About 50 Years Caste-
Kanwar, R/o Ward No.5, Bawapara, Tahsil Katghora, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellants
Versus
1. Budhwar Singh S/o Matram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Raliya, Tahsil
Katghora (Plaintiff), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
2. General Public Nil. (Defendants)
3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Korba (Defendants), District : Korba,
Chhattisgarh
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Katghora And Land Acquisition Officer,
Katghora (Defendants), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents
09.02.2023 Shri S.R.J. Jaiswal, counsel for the Appellants.
Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for Respondent No.1 on caveat.
Shri Tarkeshwar Nande, P.L. for the State/Respondents No.3 and 4.
Heard on I.A. No.01/2022, an application seeking leave to prefer the appeal.
From perusal of the record, it appears that the suit for declaration of title was
filed by the plaintiff/Respondent No.1- Budhwar Singh on the basis of an unregistered
deed of sale dated 07.12.1981 (Ex.P-1), while impleading the public at large along with
the State of C.G. and its authorities. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide
judgment and decree dated 29.11.2021 by observing inter alia that since the alleged
sale was unregistered, therefore, no right, title or interest would confer upon him. The
finding recorded by the trial Court has been reversed by the learned Appellate Court
by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 07.11.2022 passed in Civil Appeal
24-A/2021 on finding that since the value of the property in question was less than
Rs.100/-, therefore, alleged deed of sale was not required to be registered under
Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and accordingly, the claim as made by
the plaintiff has been decreed.
Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the appellants are the
legal heirs of Roopsai, who sold the property in question to the plaintiff's father,
namely, Matram and that by placing the order sheets commencing with effect from
13.09.2022 upto 11.11.2022 of Tahsildar Katghora, District Korba, it is submitted that
since one of the Appellants, namely, Dileshwar has applied for recording his name in
place of deceased predecessor-in-interest namely, said Roopsai, therefore, the
appellants are the legal representatives of said Roopsai. As such, the judgment and
decree under appeal as passed has virtually affected their interest, therefore, they may
be permitted to prefer this appeal in the interest of justice.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, considering further the
order sheets commencing with effect from 13.09.2022 upto 11.11.2022, it appears that
the appellants are the persons, who are going to be affected by the said impugned
judgment and decree, therefore, I am inclined to allow this application.
The said application is accordingly allowed and the appellants are hereby
permitted to prefer this appeal.
Also heard on admission.
This appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:-
"Whether finding of the lower Appellate Court decreeing the
plaintiff's claim for declaration of title based upon an
unregistered deed of sale dated 07.12.1981 (Ex.P-1),
purported to have been executed by the predecessor-in-
interest of the appellants, namely, Roopsai in favour of
plaintiff's father, namely, Matram, even in absence of
impleading the appellants as necessary parties to the suit, is
perverse?"
No notice is required to be issued as Shri Sunil Sahu and Shri Tarkeshwar
Nande have already made their appearance through their respective parties.
Heard on I.A. No.02/2022, an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2
read with Section 151 of C.P.C., praying for issuance of direction against the
Respondents No.3 and 4 for disbursement of the amount of compensation in pursuant
to the award dated 15.07.2019, pending decision of this appeal.
On due consideration, the application is allowed and it is directed that
Respondents No.3 and 4 shall not disburse the amount of compensation in pursuant to
the award dated 15.07.2019 passed in Land Acquisition No. 31-A/82/2018-19 to any of
the parties until further orders.
Heard on I.A. No.03/2022, an application filed under Orde 41 Rule 5 of C.PC.,
praying for staying the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and decree
dated 07.11.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No.24-A/2021, pending decision of this
appeal.
It is contended by counsel for the Appellants that the appellants are in
possession over the property in question and without impleading them as parties to the
suit, the impugned judgment and decree has been passed, therefore, the effect and
operation of it may be stayed, pending decision of this appeal, else an irreparable loss
would be caused to them.
On the other hand, Shri Sahu, counsel appearing for Respondent No.1/plaintiff,
while opposing the said application submits that since the decree is not executable in
nature, therefore, the application as framed deserves to be rejected.
Considering the aforesaid contention of the parties, I am inclined to allow this
application with a direction that none of the parties shall create any third party interest
with regard to the property in question till the disposal of this appeal.
In view of above, I.A. No.1/2022, I.A. No.2/2022 and I.A. No.03/2022 thus,
stand disposed of.
Let the matter be listed for final hearing in its turn.
Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
JUDGE
vivek
