Tikaram vs Salikram, S/O Tirithram Satnami ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 519 Chatt

                                   1

                                                                 NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                         SA No.171 of 2021
   1. Tikaram S/o Sukhru Satnami, Aged About 44 Years Occupation
      Cultivator, R/o Village Jhajhadih, Tahsil And District Bemetara
      Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

   2. Sushil S/o Sukhru Satnami, Aged About 40 Years Occupation
      Cultivator, R/o Village Jhajhadih, Tahsil And District Bemetara
      Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

   3. Heman S/o Sukhru Satnami, Aged About 42 Years Occupation
      Cultivator, R/o Village Jhajhadih, Tahsil And District Bemetara
      Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

                                           ---- Appellants/Defendants
                                Versus

   1. Salikram, S/o Tirithram Satnami (Dead), Through Legal Heirs-
      (a) Kanti Bai Tandon, W/o Salikram Tandon, Aged About 50
      Years

      (b) Deepak Kumar Tandon, S/o Salikram Tandon, Aged About
      18 Years

      (c) Shweta Tandon, D/o Salikram Tandon, Aged About 23 Years

      No.1(a) to (c) are resident of Village Jhajhadih, Tahsil And
      District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

      (d) Shashikala Kurre, W/o Ravishankar Kurre, Aged About 31
      Years R/o Sector-4, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh,

      (e) Kalawati Gayakwad, W/o Manish, Aged About 24 Years R/o
      Ward No. 15, Manpur, Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

   2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Bemetara, District
      Bemetara (Chhattisgarh) (Defendant)
                                        ---- Respondents/Plaintiffs

Present:-

Shri Bharat Rajput, counsel for the appellants. Shri Hariom Rai along with Shri Sachin Nidhi, counsel for respondents No.1(a) to 1(e).

Shri Ravipal Maheshwari, Panel Lawyer for the State/Respondent No.2.

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board 25/01/2023

Heard on admission.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendants under Section

100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, questioning the legality and

propriety of the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2021 passed in Civil

Appeal No.49-A/2019, whereby the learned appellate Court, while

affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2019 passed by the

Civil Judge Class-I, Bemetara, District Bemetara in Civil Suit

No.49-A/2017, has dismissed the appeal. The parties to this appeal

shall be referred hereinafter as per their description before the Courts

below.

2. The facts, which are essential for adjudication of this appeal, are

that the Plaintiff-Salikram instituted a suit claiming declaration of title

and also for declaration to the effect that the order passed by the Sub

Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bemetara, on 27.07.2017 in Revenue

Appeal Case No.11-A/6 Year 2008-2009 be declared as null and void.

According to the plaintiff, the property in question bearing part of

Khasra No.167 admeasuring 0.405 hectare and part of Khasra No.168

admeasuring 0.405 hectare was purchased by him on 02.03.1981 from

defendants, while the property bearing part of Khasra No.135/1, 136/1

and 225/1, total admeasuring 0.097 hectare under the registered deed

of sale, dated 15.06.1982 and, likewise, the part of another suit land

bearing Khasra No.168 admeasuring 0.405 hectare under the

registered deed of sale, dated 03.07.1982 and, thereafter, the revenue

papers were mutated in his name. Further contention of the plaintiff is

that the revenue entries so made in his favour was set aside by the

Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) vide order dated 27.07.2017 in

Appeal Case No.11-A/6 Year 2008-2009 and after obtaining the said

order, the defendants started interfering in his peaceful possession,

therefore, he has been constrained to institute a suit in the instant

nature.

3. While contesting the aforesaid claim, it is pleaded by the

defendants that the alleged registered deed of sales were obtained by

the plaintiff fraudulently and since the defendants No.2 & 3 namely

Sushil and Heman respectively were minors at that particular time,

therefore, the registered deed of sales as executed without obtaining

prior permission of the Court is apparently void, and therefore, no right,

title or interest would confer upon him. The claim of the plaintiff,

therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

4. What is therefore reflected from the pleadings of the parties that

the property in question bearing part of Khasra No.167 and 168

admeasuring 0.405 hectare each situated at Village Jhajhadih, Tahsil

and District Bemetara was purchased by the plaintiff under the

registered deed of sale dated 02.03.1981 (Ex.P-1) from the

defendants, while the part of Khasra No.135/1. 136/1 and 225/1 total

admeasuring 0.097 hectare under the registered deed of sale dated

15.06.1982 (Ex.P-2). It appears further that the plaintiff has also

purchased the another property i.e. part of Khasra No.168

admeasuring 0.405 hectare from them under the registered deed of

sale, dated 03.07.1982 (Ex.P-3). Perusal of those registered deed of

sale (Ex.P-1 to P-3) would show that Tikaram, who was major at that

particular time, has executed the same on his behalf and also while

acting as guardian of his minor brothers namely Sushil and Heman. It

appears further from a bare perusal of those sales that the property in

question was sold as he (Tikaram) was in urgent need of money for

cultivation and also to meet out other expenses. It appears further that

after acquiring the interest over the property in question as such, the

revenue papers were recorded in the name of plaintiff on 11.07.1982

and 11.08.1982 vide Namantaran Panji Nos.17 and 18 respectively.

The revenue entries so made, were, however, reversed by the Sub

Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bemetara vide order dated 27.07.2017 in

an appeal preferred by the defendants by observing that since the

alleged sales were made without obtaining prior permission of the

Court, therefore, the revenue entries so made is liable to be reversed

and accordingly, the same were directed to be reversed. The

observation so made by the said revenue authority is, however, beyond

his jurisdiction as after the execution of the registered deed of sale, the

authenticity of it could be examined only by the competent Civil Court

having its territorial jurisdiction.

5. That apart, pertinently to be noted here that although the alleged

registered deed of sales (Ex.P-1 to P-3) were executed without

obtaining prior permission of the Court, but, for the reasons best known

to the defendants, the authenticity of it was neither questioned by the

defendant No.1-Tikaram nor his brothers, after attaining their

majorities. In view thereof, it cannot be said that the alleged sales

(Ex.P-1 to P-3) have been obtained by the plaintiff by playing fraud

upon them nor could it be said to be made in contravention of the

provision prescribed under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and

Gaurdianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956"),

as claimed herein by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants/

appellants.

6. In so far as the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme

Court in the case of Saroj versus Sunder Singh and others1, as

relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants, is concerned, the

same is, however, appears to be distinguishable from the facts

involved in the present one. As in the said matter, a definite share of

the minor daughter, which she obtained upon the death of her father,

was sold by her mother without obtaining prior permission of the Court

and, therefore, it was questioned by her, where, the alleged alienation

as made by her mother was found to be made in contravention of sub-

section (3) of Section 8 of the Act of 1956 and, with that factual

scenario, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held the same to be voidable

at her instance. However, that is not the situation here, as neither the

defendant No.1-Tikaram has questioned the same nor his minor

brothers Sushil and Heman have even tried to assail the same after

attaining their majorities.

7. In view of the aforesaid background, the Courts below, upon due

and proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, have rightly

arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff-Salikram has acquired his valid

right, title and interest over the property in question by virtue of the

alleged registered deed of sales (Ex.P-1 to P-3) while reversing the

1 (2013) 15 SCC 727

order as passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) on

27.07.2017 in said Appeal Case No.11-A-6/2008-2009, so as to call for

any interference in this appeal.

8. Consequently, I do not find any questions of law, much less the

substantial questions of law, which arise for determination in this

appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly dismissed at

the admission stage itself.

No order as to costs.

SD/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Tumane