[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Shantilata Mahapatro vs Smt. Nilima Sahu on 26 February, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:9966-DB
NIKITA
JAIN NAFR
Digitally signed
by NIKITA JAIN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Date:
2026.02.28
10:32:41 +0530
FA No. 43 of 2024
1 - Smt. Shantilata Mahapatro W/o Late Shri Narendra Kumar Mahapatro,
Aged About 68 Years Presently R/o Railway Banglapara Vikas Nagar, Ward
No. 39, P.S. Kotwali, Tahsil And Dist. Raigarh (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - Smt. Nilima Sahu W/o Prashant Vishwal Aged About 34 Years R/o Village
Kudopali, Tahsil Brijrajnagar, District Jharsugada (Odisha),
2 - Shubshri Mahapatra, W/o Satish Nande, Aged About 40 Years R/o Tah.
And District Sambalpur (Odisha), Present Adress Railway Banglapara Vikas
Nagar, War No. 39, Tah. And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
3 - Ranjan Kumar Mahapatro, S/o Late Shri Narendra Kumar Mahapatro,
Aged About 48 Years R/o Railway Banglapara Vikas Nagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Tahsil And, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
4 - Smt. Gayatri Saha W/o Subhash Saha Aged About 46 Years R/o Hemu
Nagar, Bilaspur Tah. And Dist - Bilaspur C.G.
5 - Smt. Jayshri Sharma W/o Subodh Sharma, Aged About 43 Years R/o
Village Atabira, Tah. And District Bargadh (Odisha).
2
6 - Smt. Bhagyashri Raman, W/o Nitesh Raman, Aged About 36 Years Aazad
Chowk Koridimal Nagar, Tah. And, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
7 - Branch Manager C.G. Rajya Gramin Bank, Branch Itwari Bazar Raigarh,
Tah. And, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Wrongly
Mentioned As Through District President Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Appellant : Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate appears along
with Ms. Soumya Vaishnav, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned senior Advocate
appears along with Shri Malay Shrivastava and
Ms. Kajal Chandra, Advocate.
For Respondents No.2 to 6 : None, though served.
For Respondent No.7 : Shri N. Naha Roy, Advocate.
For Respondent No.8 : Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Judgment on Board
Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J
26/02/2026
1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff under Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 questioning the legality and propriety of
the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2024 passed by the learned
District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Suit No.A/14/2021, whereby the
plaintiff's claim for declaration of title and permanent injunction has
been dismissed. The parties shall be referred hereinafter as per their
description before the concerned trial Court.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the land bearing Khasra
No.287/2/d admeasuring 0.015 hectare situated at Village
Darogamuda, Tehsil and District Raigarh was originally held by one
Gopiram, who alienate the same to plaintiff's husband, namely,
Narendra Kumar Mahapatro by executing a registered deed of sale
dated 22.03.2003 (Ex.P.-26) for a consideration of Rs.45,000/- and
after its purchase, it was renumbered as Khasra No.287/23
admeasuring 0.015 hectare. According to the plaintiff, the alleged suit
land was gifted nominally by her husband to one of her daughters,
namely, Shubhshree, defendant No.2, as a loan was to be obtained for
construction of two story building over it, and the possession of it was,
therefore, not delivered to her based upon the alleged gift deed. It is
pleaded further that the alleged gift deed was made without her
knowledge and she came to know about this fact when defendant No.1
- Neelima Sahu applied for the mutation based upon the registered
deed of sale dated 28.06.2021, purported to have been executed by
her said daughter in her favour, which compelled her for the institution
of the suit claiming declaration of title and, also for the declaration to
the effect that the alleged registered deed of gift dated 02.12.2015 and,
consequent upon the execution of the alleged registered deed of sale
dated 28.06.2021, be declared as null and void and also for issuance
of injunction restraining them from interference from her peaceful
possession over the alleged suit land.
3. While contesting the aforesaid claim, it was pleaded by the defendants
that the alleged registered deed of gift was duly executed and
registered by Narendra Kumar Mahapatro in favour of his daughter,
namely, Shubhshree, while delivering its possession to her, who
immediately based upon it has obtained the revenue papers recorded
in her name and sold it to defendant No.1 Neelima Sahu by executing
a registered deed of sale, dated 28.06.2021. It is contested further on
the ground that since said Narendra Kumar has never questioned the
execution of the alleged deed of gift, therefore, claim as made by the
plaintiff deserves to be dismissed.
4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties,
arrived at a conclusion that the registered deed of gift dated
02.12.2015 (Ex.P-25) was duly executed by said Narendra Kumar
Mahapatro as he was the exclusive owner of the same and was
competent to execute the same as such and, held further that
defendant No.2-Shubhshree, who obtained the alleged land under the
alleged gift deed was, therefore, competent to execute the registered
deed of sale, dated 28.06.2021 in favour of defendant No.1-Neelima
Sahu. In consequence, the plaintiff's claim has been dismissed and,
being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the
finding recorded by the trial Court upholding the registered deed of gift
dated 02.12.2015 and consequent upon the execution of the registered
deed of sale, dated 28.06.2021 by defendant No.2 - Shubhshree in
favour of defendant No.1 - Neelima Sahu, is apparently contrary to the
materials available on record. It is contended further that though the
alleged gift deed was executed as such by said Narendra Kumar
Mahapatro, but the possession of it was never delivered to her
(Shubhshree), therefore, the trial Court ought to have held that no gift
deed as such was executed, and in fact, the same was executed
nominally only for obatining the loan for the construction of two story
building over the suit land.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
have submitted that Narendra Kumar Mahapatro, who executed the gift
deed was the exclusive owner of the suit land and was competent to
execute the gift deed and, since he never questioned the same duirng
his lifetime, therefore, it cannot be said that it was not given to
defendant No.2, as alleged by the plaintiff. It is contended further that
after obtaining the registered deed of sale on 28.06.2021, defendant
No.1 has acquired valid title over the land in question, and therefore,
there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment as passed by the trial
Court.
7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the entire record carefully.
8. Admittedly, the plaintiff's husband, namely, Narendra Kumar Mahapatro
was the exclusive owner of the land in question described in plaint
Schedule 'A' as he purchased the same from one Gopiram under the
registered deed of sale dated 22.03.2003 (Ex.P.-26) for a consideration
of Rs.45,000/- and thereafter, he executed a registered deed of gift
dated 02.12.2015 (Ex.P.-25) in favour of one of his daughters, namely,
Shubhshree, defendant No.2 in presence of two witnesses, namely,
Dilip Behra and Surendra Kumar. A bare perusal of the recitals made
therein would show that the possession of it was delivered to the
donee, i.e., defendant No.2 and it appears further that based upon the
alleged registered deed of gift, name of her was recorded on
17.12.2015 as revealed from Namantaran Panji, marked as Ex.P.-27.
Pertinently to be noted here further that the donor of the alleged gift
deed, namely, Narendra Kumar Mahapatro, who died on 29.09.2016,
had never questioned its execution, therefore, under such
circumstances, its authenticity cannot be disputed by his wife, the
plaintiff herein and her daughter Shubhshree, the donee, was, thus,
competent to alienate the same to defendant No.1, namely, Neelima
Sahu by executing a registered deed of sale, dated 28.06.2021 (Ex.P.-
24) .
9. In view of the aforesaid background, we do not find any substance in
this appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
A decree be drawn accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
JUDGE JUDGE
Nikita
