Chattisgarh High Court
Praveera @ Prabhat Kumar vs Omkumari on 3 September, 2025
1
NIRMALA
RAO
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 391 of 2024
1 - Praveera @ Prabhat Kumar S/o Kaleshwar Prasad Sahu Aged About 27 Years
(Adopted Father) R/o Bodki, P.S., Tehsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Omkumari W/o. Late Kuleshwar Prasad Sahu, Aged About 57 Years R/o. Village
Amapara Balod Tehsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh.
2 - Jitendranath Sahu S/o. Late Narad Ram Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o
Amapara Balod, Tehsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh.
3 - Neerabai, W/o Late Naradram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Amapara Balod,
Tehsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh.
4 - Hiralal Bohra, S/o. Nemichand Bohra, Aged About 65 Years R/o Dallirajhara,
Jagjivanram Ward No. 25, Tehsil Daundi District Balod Chhattisgarh.
5 - Khamma Bai Bohra Jain W/o. Hiralal Bohra, Aged About 61 Years R/o
Dallirajhara, Jagjivanram Ward No. 25, Tehsil Daundi District Balod Chhattisgarh.
6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate.
For Respondent/ State : Shri Vedant Shadangi, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
03.09.2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated
7.3.2024 passed in Civil Suit No.1A of 2019, whereby an
application moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC
has been rejected. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration of
title, possession and permanent injunction against respondents
No.2 to 6 making averments to declare the gift deed dated
12.5.2016 as null and void pertaining to Survey No. 1089 of 2018,
admeasuring 0.014 hectares, situated at Patwari Halka No.6,
Tehsil and District Balod. She further pleaded that the gift deed is
outcome of fraud and defendants No.1 to 5 are trying to alienate
the property. The suit is still pending. During the pendency of the
suit, the petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of
CPC on the ground that he has been declared the adopted son of
the plaintiff and her husband in Civil Suit No.49A of 2016 vide
judgment dated 5.1.2023, and therefore, he is a necessary party.
The application moved by the petitioner was rejected by the trial
Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially the
property was recorded in the name of father of Kuleshwar Prasad
Sahu, father of the petitioner, and after his death, it was recorded
in the name of respondent No.1/ plaintiff. She would contend that
the petitioner has right over the suit property, therefore, he is a
necessary party. Accordingly, the learned trial Court ought to
have allowed the petition.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose
the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.
4. Heard.
5. Considering the fact that though the petitioner has been declared
the adopted son of respondent No.1/ plaintiff, the suit property is
recorded in the name of plaintiff herself, and during her life time,
the petitioner has no independent right to claim title or
possession, the application moved by the petitioner before the
Court below was premature. Therefore, it was rightly rejected by
the learned trial Court. I do not find any good ground to interfere
into the matter.
6. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi
