Panchram And Anr vs Santram @ Chamru Andors
2023 Latest Caselaw 980 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                     NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       Second Appeal No. 65 of 2014

     1. Panchram S/o Firtu Aged About 35 Years, Caste Lodhi, R/o
        Amlidhikala, Tah. Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

     2. Daan Bai W/o Firtu Ram Aged About 60 Years R/o Amlidhikala, Tah.
        Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Plaintiffs)

                                                             ---- Appellants

                                   Versus

     1. Santram @ Chamru S/o Firtu Ram Aged About 33 Years R/o
        Amlidhikala, Tah. Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

     2. Tek Ram S/o Sant Ram @ Chamru Aged About 12 Years

     3. Takeshwar S/o Sant Ram Aged About 3 Years

        (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are Minor, through legal guardian Mother

Smt. Sheela Bai, W/o Sant Ram, Aged about 34 Yrs)

Both are residents of village Amlidhikala, Tah. Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

4. State Of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

----Respondents(Defendants)

For Appellants :Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate appears along with Shri Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.4/State:Shri Priyanshu Gupta, Panel Lawyer

Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

Judgment/Order on Board

15.02.2023

Heard on admission.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs 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

25.09.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No.23-A/2010, whereby, the learned

appellate court while affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2010

passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon(CG)

in Civil Suit No.25-A/2009, has dismissed the appeal. The parties to this

appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the

Courts below.

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

title, partition, separate possession and for injunction was made by the

plaintiffs by submitting, inter alia, that the property in question bearing

Khasra Nos. 411/3, 411/31, 411/36, 411/38, 464, 262/2, total admeasuring

2.14 acres as described in plaint Schedule 'A', situated at village Amlidih

Kala, Tahsil Khairagah, District Rajnandgaon, are their ancestral properties.

According to them, out of it, 01 acre of land was provided to defendant

No.1- Firtu Ram, (now deleted from the cause-title owing to his sad

demise), who was the father of plaintiff No.1- Panchram and defendant

No.2-Santram @ Chamru on lease, while rest of the properties were

obtained by him in partition, which was effected between him and his

brother, namely, Harilal. It is pleaded further that said Firtu Ram, without

any legal necessity is trying to alienate the said ancestral property,

therefore, they have been constrained to institute the suit in the instant

nature.

4. While contesting the aforesaid claim, it was pleaded by the

defendants that the property in question is the self-acquired property of

defendant No.1- Firtu Ram, as such, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get it

partitioned as claimed and suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. From perusal of the averments made in the plaint, it appears that the

plaintiffs are claiming partition and separate possession on the premises

that the property in question is the ancestral property in the hands of their

predecessor in interest, namely, Firtu Ram and, therefore, they are entitled

to claim as such. The burden to establish the fact that the property in

question is the ancestral property is, therefore, upon the plaintiffs. But, from

perusal of the record, it appears that the plaintiffs have failed to produce

any cogent and reliable documentary evidence in order to establish the

same and, even the Rin Pustika, marked as Ex. P-4 is shown to be

recorded in the name of said Firtu Ram. That apart, the plaintiffs have

failed to produce any document in order to show that the property in

question came in his (Firtu Ram) share in partition effected between him

and his brother- Harilal, as pleaded by them at para 4 of the plaint.

6. Consequently, the Courts below, after due consideration of the

evidence placed on record, have not committed any illegality in dismissing

the plaintiffs' claim and, I do not find any question of law, much less the

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

7. The appeal being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed at the

admission stage itself.

                No order as to costs.                               Sd/-


                                                          (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
                                                                JUDGE
sunita


                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                         Order Sheet

                                      SA No. 65 of 2014

Panchram & Anr. Versus Santram @ Chamru & Ors.

15/02/2023 Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate appears along with Shri Abhishek Sharma, counsel for the Appellants.

Shri Priyanshu Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/ Respondent No.4.

Arguments heard on admission.

Judgment/order dictated in open Court. Signed and dated separately. Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

sunita