Chattisgarh High Court
Ramcharan vs Udasiya on 14 February, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:8059
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SA No. 345 of 2024
1 - Ramcharan S/o Late Premlal Aged About 54 Years Caste Ahir, Resident Of
Village Korea Colliery, P.S. Chirmiri, Tahsil Chirmiri, District M.C.B., Chhattisgarh,...
(Plaintiffs)
2 - Punni @ Subhagiya W/o Late Bachchalal Aged About 55 Years Caste Ahir,
Resident Of Village Korea Colliery, P.S. Chirmiri, Tahsil Chirmiri, District M.C.B.,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Fulbai @ Fulmati W/o Late Jagarnath Aged About 52 Years Caste Ahir, Resident
Of Village Korea Colliery, P.S. Chirmiri, Tahsil Chirmiri, District M.C.B., Chhattisgarh
... Appellants
versus
1 - Udasiya W/o Late Ramprasad Aged About 52 Years Caste - Ahir, Resident Of
Near Bazar, Gelhapani, Incharge Center And Tahsil Chirmiri, District M.C.B.,
Chhattisgarh,...(Defendants)
2 - Lalita @ Gyanwali W/o Budhram Aged About 35 Years Caste - Ahir, Resident Of
Near Bazar, Gelhapani, Incharge Center And Tahsil Chirmiri, District M.C.B.,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Aarati D/o Late Ramprasad Aged About 20 Years Caste - Ahir, Resident Of Near
Bazar, Gelhapani, Incharge Center And Tahsil Chirmiri, District M.C.B., Chhattisgarh
4 - Nanki W/o Anand Ram Aged About 50 Years Caste - Ahir, Resident Of Near
Bazar, Gelhapani, Incharge Center And Tahsil Chirmiri, District M.C.B., Chhattisgarh
5 - Vindhyawasi W/o Raghunandan Aged About 48 Years Caste - Ahir, Resident Of
Village Chirmi, Tahsil Bachrapodi, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh
2
6 - Kalawati W/o Ramavatar Aged About 46 Years Caste Ahir, Resident Of Village
Pendri, Tahsil Kelhari, District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh
7 - Vindawati @ Guddi W/o Suresh @ Babalu Aged About 48 Years Caste Ahir,
Resident Of Village Kasra Bodhar Ke Beech Me, And Tahsil Baikunthpur, District
Koriya, Chhattisgarh
8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Koriya, Chhattisgarh, (Now District
M.C.B., Chhattisgarh)
... Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellants : Mr. Ram Sevak Soni, Adv.
For Respondent No. 8 : Mr. Aman Deep Singh, Panel Lawyer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Order On Board
14-02-2025
Heard.
1. This is plaintiffs' Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 against the impugned judgment and decree dated
22.06.2024 passed by 1st District Judge, Manendragarh, District Koria (C.G.)
in Civil Appeal No. 23-A/2023, affirming the judgment and decree dated
30.10.2023 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Manendragarh, District Koria
(C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 60-A/22, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit.
[For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred to as per their
status shown in the plaint filed by the plaintiffs before the trial Court]
2. Facts of the case, as per averments made in the plaint, are that the
plaintiffs have instituted civil suit before the Civil Judge, Class-II,
Manendragarh, District Koria (C.G.) for declaration of their absolute title
and possession over the suit land restraining the defendants No. 1 to 3
from interfering with the possession over the suit land pleading inter alia
that plaintiffs and defendants are family members / successor of Premlal,
who was original owner of the suit land. Premlal had obtained suit land
from his father - late Dubraj Aheer, as such, the suit land was ancestral
property of plaintiffs and defendants. It is further pleaded that after death of
Premlal, his son late Ramprasad got mutated his name in revenue records
of land area 7.148 hectare including suit land in his name and, thereafter,
he sold total 4.318 hectare of that land, subsequently, he died in the year
2011. It is further pleading of plaintiffs that out of 7.418 hectare ancestral
property of plaintiffs & defendants, late Ramprasad had sold the land,
which is more than his share i.e. 4.318 hectare, therefore, defendants No.
1 to 3, who are wife and daughters of late Ramprasad are not entitled to
get any share in the suit land, as such, the plaintiffs be declared absolute
owner & possession holder of the suit lands bearing Khasra No. 886, area
0.04 hectare, Khasra No. 984, area 0.34 hectare, Khasra No. 986, area
0.87 hectare and Khasra No. 990, area 0.17 hectare, respectively.
3. Respondents/defendants filed their written statement stating inter
alia that since late Ramprasad had sold property during existence of joint
Hindu Family, as there was no partition effected between sons and
daughters of late Premlal and he sold land for need of the family, therefore,
the plaintiffs are not entitled to get declaration of absolute owner of suit
lands.
4. On the basis of pleading of both the parties, learned trial Court
framed as many as five issues and recorded evidence adduced by the
parties and after considering the same, dismissed the suit filed by plaintiffs
by recording a finding that during selling of said land by Ramprasad,
plaintiffs & defendants were living as joint Hindu family and it has not been
proved by plaintiffs that Ramprasad had sold said land for his own or
without any legal cause. Learned Trial Court further recorded a finding
that since suit property is ancestral property of plaintiffs and defendants,
therefore, plaintiffs cannot be held absolute owner of the suit property.
5. The plaintiffs preferred first appeal against the judgment & decree
passed by the trial Court. First Appellate Court vide its impugned judgment
& decree dated 22.06.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No. 23-A/2023 has
dismissed the appeal upholding judgment & decree passed by the trial
Court. Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that since
late Ramprasad had sold more than his share of ancestral property, as
such, his legal heirs i.e. defendants No. 1 to 3 are not entitled to get any
share over the remaining property, which is suit property in the instant
case. But learned counsel for appellants/plaintiffs conceded the fact that
when Ramprasad sold the said property, at that time, no partition was
effected between sons and daughter of late Premlal, meaning thereby, suit
land was joint family property of plaintiffs & defendants, it has not been
proved by plaintiffs/appellants that Ramprasad had sold said land without
any lawful purpose or without any interest of the family.
7. Having considered the aforesaid facts and further considering the
fact that undisputedly the suit land is ancestral property of plaintiffs and
defendants, who are sons & daughters / class - I heir of late Premlal,
therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled to get absolute title over the suit
propety, as there are other class I heir of late Premlal, as such, they are
also co-sharers of suit property.
8. In view of foregoing discussion, no substantial question of law is found
to be involved in this appeal. Consequently, second appeal is dismissed at
the motion stage itself. No cost(s).
9. A decree be drawn up accordingly.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Amit/-
Digitally
signed by
AMIT
AMIT KUMAR
KUMAR DUBEY
Date:
DUBEY 2025.02.18
16:26:29
+0530
