Chattisgarh High Court
Sugriv Prasad vs Injoria Bai And Others on 9 January, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
SA No. 289 of 2008
Sugriv Prasad Aged About 30 Years S/o Ranglal, R/o Village Sirouli,
Tah. Manendragarh, Korea ---- Appellant/Plaintiff
Versus
1. Injoria Bai, W/o Kodulal, aged about 50 years, Viillage Padaur, PS
Bhalumada, Tah.Kotma, Distt. Anuppur (MP)
2. Brijbhushan, S/o Ganpat, Aged about 35 years, R/o Gram Belbahra, PS
& Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt. Koria (CG)
3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Distt. Koria, Baikunthpur (CG)
4. Bhagirathi, S/o Nadhir Singh Gond, Aged about 35 years, R/o Village-
Sirouli, PS-Manendragarh, District Koria (CG)
---- Respondents/Defendants
For Appellant :Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate
For Respondent 1 :Shri Nishikant Sinha, Advocate
For Respondents 2 & 4 :Shri Keshav Dewangan, Advocate.
For Respondent 3/State :Shri Tarakeshwar Nande, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
Order/Judgment on Board
09.01.2023
Heard on admission.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, questioning the legality and propriety of the
judgment and decree dated 23.07.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No. 8-A/2007
by the 2nd Additional District Judge (FTC), Manendragarh, whereby the
learned appellate Court, while affirming the judgment and decree dated
30.06.2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-1, Manendragarh in Civil Suit
No.43-A/2001, has dismissed the appeal.
2. From perusal of the record, it appears that plaintiffs - Gajadhar Panika
and Virjharam instituted a suit claiming declaration of title by way of adverse
possession with regard to the property in question bearing Kh.No. 170, 144,
159, 166, 457 and 501/1 total admeasuring 1.89 hectares, as described in
plaint para 2, situated at village Sirouli, Tahsil Manendragarh, District Koria.
According to the plaintiffs, the property in question is the ancestral property
and Samluram, defendant No.1, who obtained the revenue papers recorded in
his name, has partitioned the same during his lifetime on 04.01.1980 amongst
the plaintiffs and his daughter, namely, Injoriya Bai, who was impleaded as
defendant No.1-a, in place of her father Samluram. It is pleaded by the
plaintiffs that since 1980 they are in possession, therefore, they have acquired
their right, title and interest over the property in question, but, defendant No.1
- Samluram, despite of the said partition, sold the same by executing a
registered deed of sale dated 13.01.1999 in favour of Brijbhushan, defendant
No.2 herein, and therefore, they are not bound by alleged sale.
3. While contesting the aforesaid claim, defendants No. 1 & 2 have
pleaded that the property in question is not the ancestral property as it was
settled in the year 1954-55 in the name of one Buturam, who was the father of
said Samluram and after the sad demise of his father, he (Samluram) alone
has become the owner of the same. It was contested further on the ground
that no partition as such was ever made by said Samluram, who upon
receiving the entire sale consideration, had sold the same to defendant No. 2
- Brijbhushan under the registered deed of sale dated 13.01.1999 and which
has never been questioned by him during his lifetime. The entire claim of the
plaintiffs is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
4. From perusal of the statement of P.W.1- Gajadhar, son of Dhaniram, it
appears that Samluram is the son of said Buturam and defendant Samluram
is only his son. He deposed further at para 13 that the property in question
was never partitioned by him and they were cultivating the same on his behalf.
It, thus, appears that the plaintiffs' possession is shown to be the permissive in
nature and, therefore, it cannot be said that they acquired their interest by way
of adverse possession. It is true, from perusal of the statement of said
Samluram (D.W.1) that the property in question was divided by him amongst
the plaintiffs and his daughter, and has admitted further that deed of partition
was executed to this effect where he put his signature in presence of the
witnesses. But, the said fact was, however, not found to be supported from
his own pleadings as reflected from his written statement where he himself
has denied this particular fact specifically.
5. In view of the statements made by the parties, it is evident that the
property in question is not the ancestral property and, in fact, it was owned by
the father of said Samluram and after the death of his father - Buturam, it was
recorded in the name of said Samluram and, it appears further, based upon
the said evidence, that no partition as such was ever made by him, as pleaded
by the plaintiffs. As observed herein above, said Samluram had sold the
property in question to defendant No.2 - Brijbhushan by executing a
registered deed of sale dated 13.01.1999 (Ex.D-3) where he put his signature
as evidenced by his testimony para 15 and who has never questioned the
authenticity of it.
6. In view of the aforesaid background, I do not find any infirmity in the
findings of the Courts below dismissing the plaintiffs' claim so as to call for any
interference in this appeal.
7. Accordingly, 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 merit is, thus, dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge
Anjani
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet,
SA No.289 of of 2008
Sugriv Prasad Vs. Injoria Bai & others
09.01.2023 Ms. Priyanka Mehta, counsel for the appellant.
Shri Nishikant Sinha, counsel for respondents No.1.
Shri Keshav Dewangan, counsel for respondents No. 2 & 4.
Shri Tarakeshwar Nande, P.L. for the State/respondent No.3
Heard on admission.
Order/Judgment dictated in open Court. Signed and dated
separately.
Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge
Anjani
