Chattisgarh High Court
Asgarunnisha Khan vs Kamalchand Jain on 30 January, 2023
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet,
SA No. 150 of 2020
1. Asgarunnisha Khan D/o Karimulla Khan, Aged About 66 Years R/o Opposite Of United
Blood Bank, Nurani Chowk, Raja Talab, District Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur
(Chhattisgarh).................Defendant No. 1, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Ali Mulla (Died) Through Lrs As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 22-06-2022
2 (A) - Dr. (Mrs.) Fahmida Khan, Wd/o Late Ali Mulla Khan Aged About 63 Years R/o
Sector-2, Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
2 (B) - Ameen Khan, S/o Late Ali Mulla Khan Aged About 34 Years R/o Sector-2, Avanti
Vihar, Telibandha, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
2 (C) - Aamir Khan S/o Late Ali Mulla Khan Aged About 29 Years R/o Sector-2, Avanti
Vihar, Telibandha, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
---- Appellants/Defendant No.1
Versus
1. Kamalchand Jain S/o Late Nemichand Jain, Aged About 54 Years R/o Avanti Vihar,
Telibandha Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.............Plaintiff, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur Chhattisgarh.................Defendant No. 3,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents
(Cause title taken from CIS)
30.01.2023 Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for the appellants.
Shri Arvind Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No.1.
Shri Ravipal Maheshwari, P.L. for the State/respondent No.2.
Heard on admission.
The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-
"1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings
of the Courts below decreeing the plaintiff's claim while entitling him the
ownership of the property in question as purchased by him under the sale,
dated 15.03.2004 (Ex.P.1) even without considering and/or comparing with
regard to the boundaries mentioned in the sale, dated 28.12.1992 (Ex.D.1)
which was executed in favour of defendant No.1 by Ravidas Baraik and
Dayadas, are perverse?
2. Whether finding of the lower appellate Court decreeing the plaintiff's
claim for injunction while restraining the defendants from interfering of his
land purchased under the registered deed of sale, dated 15.03.2004 (Ex.P.1)
even in absence of demarcation being carried out, is perverse ?"
Learned counsel for the appellants is directed to supply the substantial
questions of law as framed to the learned counsel for the respondents within a
period of 15 days from today.
Also heard on I.A.No. 01/2020, an application filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for staying the effect and operation of
the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.01.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No.
23-A/2019, pending decision of this appeal.
On due consideration, the application is allowed and it is directed that the
effect and operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.01.2020
passed in Civil Appeal No. 23-A/2019 by the Court of 2 nd Additional Judge to the
Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) shall remain stayed until further
orders subject to appellants' furnishing security amount of Rs.25,000/- before the
concerned Executing Court within a period of 45 days from today for due
performance of the decree ultimately to be passed by this Court.
In view of above, I.A.No.01/2020 stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge
Anjani
