Motilal vs Gopal
2025 Latest Caselaw 1029 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Motilal vs Gopal on 9 January, 2025

                                              -1-




                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                      SA No. 31 of 2022

            Motilal S/o Shri Prakash Chandra Jain Aged About 35 Years R/o Village
            Kusumksa, Tahsil Doundi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                   ... Appellant

                                           versus

            1 - Gopal S/o Johan Ram Dadsena Aged About 51 Years

            2 - Yugal S/o Johan Ram Dadsena Aged About 47 Years

            3 - Pawan S/o Johan Ram Dadsena Aged About 46 Years

            4 - Rajeshwari D/o Johan Ram Dadsena Aged About 46 Years

            5 - Pushpa D/o Johan Ram Dadsena Aged About 55 Years

            6 - Dulari D/o Johan Ram Dadsena Aged About 53 Years

            7 - Rukhmani W/o Johan Ram Dadsena Aged About 73 Years

            8 - Mahesh S/o Surajmal Dadsena Aged About 53 Years

            9 - Chaman S/o Surajmal Dadsena Aged About 51 Years

            10 - Keshwari D/o Surajmal Dadsena Aged About 49 Years

            11 - Saraswati D/o Surajmal Dadsena Aged About 47 Years

            12 - Anjani W/o Surajmal Dadsena Aged About 70 Years
Digitally
signed by   Respondents No. 02 to 12 are represented through Power Of Attorney (Special)

PRAVEEN KUMAR Holder Respondent No.01, Gopal S/o Johan Ram Dadsena, Aged About 51 SINHA Years, R/o Village Kusumksa, Tahsil Doundi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.

13 - Sampatlal S/o Nemichand Jain Aged About 73 Years R/o Village Kusumksa, Tahsil Doundi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.

14 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

09/01/2025 Ms. Meena Shastri counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard.

This appeal is admitted on following substantial questions of law:-

"1. Whether the learned Courts below justified in recording a finding that the suit in its form is not barred under the provision of Section 257 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 ?

2. Whether the finding recorded by learned Appellate Court that the sale deed dated 19.05.2011 (Ex.D-4C) is not binding upon the plaintiffs, is perverse to the evidence available on record ?"

Issue notice to respondents.

Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer accepts notice for respondent No.14. Hence PF is not required to be paid for issuance of notice to respondent No.14.

Issue notice to respondents No. 1 to 13 on payment of PF as per rules. Notices be made returnable in four weeks.

Also head on IA No.1/2024 which is an application stay of effect and operation of impugned judgment and decree.

Issue notices to respondents No. 1 to 13 on this application also on payment of PF as above.

On due consideration of the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, purely as an interim measure, it is directed that there shall be stay of impugned judgment and decree till the next date of hearing.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-/---/-/-----//--/-/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

Praveen