Chattisgarh High Court
Mus Halima Bai vs Abdul Rashid on 28 August, 2025
1/3
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 439 of 2022
1. Mus Halima Bai D/o Abdul Jalil, W/o Yusuf Ali Aged About 63 Years R/o
Pratappur, Post Kodwabani, Tehsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh
2. Abdul Rehman S/o Abdul Jalil Aged About 63 Years
3. Habiburrehman S/o Abdul Rehman Aged About 33 Years
4. Mujiburrehman D/o Abdul Rehman Aged About 26 Years
All R/o Village Semariya, Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh
... Appellants
versus
1 Abdul Rashid (Now Dead) S/o Late Abdul Mutal, Through Legal Heirs
1.1 (A) Smt. Hamida Khatun Wd/o Abdul Rashid Aged About 81 Years
1.2 (B) Uwaija Khatun D/o Abdul Rashid, W/o Aftab Bhai Aged About 48 Years
Both R/o Raja Talab, Urani Gali No. 2, Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Smt. Zubeda Begum Wd/o Late Mohd. Ismail Aged About 58 Years R/o
Masanganj, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
3. Shamsunnisha W/o Baeeduddin Aged About 48 Years R/o Balaudabazar,
Tehsil And District Balaudabazar Chhattisgarh
4. Fatma Bi W/o Sayed Majid Ali Aged About 61 Years R/o Yadunandan Nagar,
Bilaspur Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
5. Zainab Bi W/o Sayed Ahmed Ali Aged About 56 Years R/o Talapara, Bilaspur
Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
6. Najbunnisha W/o Sheikh Maksood Aged About 53 Years R/o Chantidih,
Bilaspur Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
2/3
7. Qamarunnisha W/o Mohd Daud Aged About 43 Years R/o Talapara, Bilaspur
Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
8. Badarunnisha W/o Mohd. Ibrahim Aged About 72 Years R/o Masanganj,
Bilaspur Tehsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
9. Mohd. Salim S/o Late Mohd Ibrahim Aged About 43 Years
10. Mohd Alim S/o Late Mohd Ibrahim Aged About 40 Years
Both respondent No. 9 & 10 R/o Masanganj, Bilaspur Tehsil And District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh
11 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh
....Respondents
28/08/2025 Ms. Meena Ansari along with Mr. Aman Ansari,
counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Amit Kumar, counsel for respondents No.1 to 10.
Ms. Mandvi Bhardwaj, PL for the State/ respondent
No.11 .
Heard on admission and formulation of substantial
question of law.
This second appeal is admitted and shall be heard on
the following substantial question of law:-
"Whether finding recorded by trial Court and
upheld by first Appellate Court that because of
subsequent Will dated 04.12.2002 (Ex.P12)
executed by Abdul Khaalik in favour of Mhd.
Ismail, Rasid and Abdul Rehman, earlier, Will
dated 15.1.1996 (Ex. D2) executed by Abdul
Khaalik has become ineffective and null, is
perverse and against the evidence available on
record?"
Issue notice to respondents on appeal alongwith copy
of aforesaid substantial question of law.
Since learned counsel for respondents and learned
State counsel appears and accepts notice on behalf of their
Respondents, issuance of notice to them is dispensed of.
Also heard on I.A. No.1/2022, application under Order
41 Rule 5 CPC.
Having considered the partition decree granted by
both the Courts below in favour of plaintiffs, the I.A.
No.1/2022 is allowed.
It is directed that effect and operation of judgment
and decree dated 20.10.2014 passed by passed by 1st Civil
Judge Class I, Mungeli in civil suit No.52A/2003 and upheld
by first Additional District Judge, Mungeli (C.G.) on
26.7.2022 in civil appeal No.45A/2014 shall remain stayed,
till final disposal of this appeal.
List the case for final hearing in due course.
SD/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Ayushi
AYUSHI SINGH
SINGH 2025.08.29
10:34:36
+0530
