Jagjeet Singh vs Shobharani
2023 Latest Caselaw 911 Chatt

                                                1


                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                          Order Sheet
                                      S.A. No. 222 of 2017
                    Jagjeet Singh and another Versus Shobharani and others



 13.02.2023         Shri H. B. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appears along with Smt. Swati

              Agrawal, counsel for the Appellants.

                    Shri Kanhaiya Yadav, counsel appears on behalf of Shri Dharmesh

              Shrivastave, counsel for Respondent No.1.

Shri Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer for the State/Respondent No.3.

Heard.

Order dictated in open Court. Signed and dated separately.

Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

Nikita

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR S.A. No. 222 of 2017

1. Jagjeet Singh S/o Late Pratap Singh Saluja, Aged About 40 Years R/o Balbhadra Ward Bhatapara, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh.

2. Satyajeet Singh S/o Late Pratap Singh Saluja, Aged About 33 Years R/o Balbhadra Ward Bhatapara, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh .................Defendants,

---- Appellants Versus

1. Shobharani W/o Manjeet Singh Gumber, Aged About 55 Years R/o Shankar Nagar Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..................Plaintiff.

2. Jagpreet Singh S/o Late Pratap Singh Saluja, Aged About 35 Years R/o Balbhadra Ward Bhatapara, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh .................Defendant.

3. The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..............Defendant.

---- Respondents

For Appellants: Shri H. B. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appears along with Smt. Swati Agrawal, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1: Shri Kanhaiya Yadav, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Dharmesh Shrivastave, Advocate.

For State/Respondent No. 3: Shri Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer.

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

13.02.2023 Heard

1. This appeal has been preferred by Defendant No.1-Jagjeet Singh &

Defendant No.3-Satyajeet Singh Saluja under Section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') questioning the legality

and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2017 passed in Civil

Appeal No.10-A/2010, whereby, the lower appellate Court, while affirming the

judgment and decree dated 20.07.2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II,

Simga, District Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.75-A/2007, has dismissed the

appeal. The parties shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before

the trial Court.

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

injunction was made by Plaintiff-Smt. Shobharani Gumber by submitting inter

alia that by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated 20.04.1978, she

purchased the property in question bearing Khasra No.38/1 admeasuring

4.197 hectare situated at Village Jaraud, Tehsil Simga, District Raipur for a

consideration of Rs.1,000/- and since then she is in possession, while

cultivating the same. It is pleaded further that after purchasing the property in

question, as such, her name is recorded in revenue papers in the year 1981.

Further contention of her is that one Amarjeet Saluja was appointed by her as

her power of attorney holder and when she went for erection of the boundary

wall and house through him on the disputed land, Defendants No. 1 to 3

started interference, therefore, she has been constrained to institute a suit in

the instant nature.

3. While contesting the aforesaid claim and that by submitting a counter

claim, it was stated by the defendants that the alleged deed of sale was

executed in order to avoid the ceiling proceedings and was never intended to

alienate the same as such. According to them, the value of the land in

question was Rs.40,000/- in the year 1978, therefore, it could not have been

sold in a throwaway price of Rs.1,000/-, particularly, when it was purchased in

the year 1965 at Rs.1,500/-. It is pleaded further that the land in question is the

joint family property, therefore, it could not be transferred as such by said

Bhagwan Singh alone. It is pleaded further that since they are in possession

over the land in question continuously for over more than 21 years, therefore,

they have prescribed their right, title and interest by way of adverse

possession. The claim as made by the Plaintiff is, therefore, liable to be

dismissed.

4. From perusal of the record, it appears that one Bhagwan Singh Saluja,

who was the grandfather of the Plaintiff-Smt. Shobharani Gumber, had sold

the land in question bearing Khasra No.38/1 admeasuring 4.197 hectare

situated at the said village to her through his power of attorney holder, namely,

Pratapsingh Saluja, who was authorised by him under the general power of

attorney, marked as Ex.P.18(c), to alienate the same. He was his son and the

father of the defendants. A bare perusal of it would show that the Plaintiff was

put in possession thereof, who has thereupon got the revenue papers

recorded in her name in the year 1981. It appears further from a recital made

therein that it was sold by him as he was in need of money at the relevant time

and the said fact was also corroborated by the registered deed of sale dated

19.05.1979, marked as Ex.P.20. That apart, Jagjeet Singh (Defendant No.2),

who was examined as DW-2, has stated specifically at paragraph 5 of his

testimony that the alleged sale was executed as per the instruction of said

Bhagwan Singh. It is, thus, evident that the alleged deed of sale (Ex.P.1) was

duly executed by him. Although, it was questioned by the defendants that it

was sold in order to avoid the ceiling proceedings, but have failed to produce

any cogent and reliable evidence in order to establish the same, nor have

succeeded to prove that it was the joint family property in the hands of said

Bhagwan Singh.

5. Pertinently to be noted here further that said Bhagwan Singh died on

19.09.1979, but had never tried to question the validity of the alleged sale

during his lifetime. Therefore, at the instance of the defendants, the

authenticity of it cannot be questioned. That apart, the counter claim as filed

by them on 09.10.2001 was rightly held to be barred by time as it was

instituted beyond the prescribed period of 3 years as provided under Article 58

of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.

6. Besides, the defendants have claimed their interest by way of adverse

possession but the pleadings, as made by them, appear to be contradictory in

nature, therefore, it is difficult to hold that they have prescribed their interest by

way of adverse possession, as claimed.

7. Consequently, I do not find any question of law, much less the

substantial questions of law which arise for determination in this appeal. The

appeal being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage

itself.

No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Nikita