1 - Rajesh Kumar S/o Keshav Ram Satnami, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village v. 1
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:9368 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 109 of 2010 1 - Rajesh Kumar S/o Keshav Ram Satnami, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Rahangi, Police Station Bodala, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rajendra Kumar S/o Kehav Ram Satnami Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Rahangi, Thana Bodala, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - (Deleted) Shashi Bai (Dead) As Per Honble Court Order Dt. 23-06-2021. 2 - Guddu S/o Keshav @ Rajendra Vaidhya, Aged 6 Years, Minor, Through Natural Guardian Mother Shashibai, R/o Devari (Near Village Karhi) Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Laxman Ram Jangde S/o Kanhaiya R/o Village Budhwara, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent(s) SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2025.02.25 15:19:28 +0530 For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Meenu Banerjee, Advocate For Respective : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate and Mr. T.S. Respondents Sahu, Panel Lawyer 2 SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 24/02/2025 1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24.2.2009 passed by the District Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha), Chhattisgarh in Civil Appeal No.47-A/2007, affirming the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2007 passed in Civil Suit No.69-A/2006 by the Second Civil Judge Class-I, Kabirdham, Kawardha, whereby, the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs was dismissed. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants/plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title and further for declaration of the sale-deed dated 29.4.2003 executed by Late Keshav Ram, father of the appellants/plaintiffs, in favour of defendant No.2 Laxman Ram Jangde as void and also for permanent injunction. It has been averred that deceased -Keshav Ram and Kunjkali Bai (mother of the plaintiffs) had collected some money by doing the labour work and from the money so collected as also with some financial help extended by the grandfather (Nana) of the plaintiffs namely Rameshar, the land admeasuring 1.24 acres was purchased at Village Prabhatola in the name of Keshav for a consideration of Rs.20,000/- by the sale deed dated 31.5.1990 (Ex.P/1). On 18.6.1996, deceased Keshav, in a clandestine manner, sold some part of the purchased land i.e. Khasra No.86/5 admeasuring area 0.27 decimal in favour of Laxman. Thereafter, the mother of the plaintiffs called a social meeting in the Village Panchayat 3 and in the said meeting, deceased- Keshav promised to give the remaining part of the land i.e. 0.97 decimal to the plaintiffs. Subsequently, deceased Keshav, in a fraudulent manner, sold the said land by the Sale-deed dated 29.4.2003 in favour of defendant No.2 though the plaintiffs were in possession of the said land. During pendency of the suit, the father of the plaintiffs -Keshav died and his other legal heirs Shashi and Guddu were brought on record. 3. Defendant No.1a - Shashi, wife of Keshav, remained ex-parte. Defendant No.1b and defendant No.2 (purchaser) contested the suit and pleaded that the subject property was the earned property of deceased – Keshav Ram and defendant No.2 is a bonafide purchaser for consideration. It was also averred that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the subject property and thus, prayed to dismiss the suit. 4. The trial Court framed as many as 7 issues. The plaintiffs have examined 4 witnesses namely Rameshar (grandfather of the plaintiffs), Rajkumar, Bhukau and Sushil Kumar and exhibited 6 documents - Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/6. Respondent No.3-Laxman Ram Jangde examined himself as DW-1, Chunku Daharia as DW-2 and Ramji as DW-3 and the Sale-deed dated 29.4.2003 was exhibited as Ex.D/1, through which, respondent No.3 purchased the subject property from Keshav Ram S/o Kashi Ram. The trial Court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, reached to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case and dismissed the suit. Learned Appellate Court also affirmed the said findings and dismissed the First Appeal. Hence, this Second Appeal 5. This appeal was admitted for hearing on 28.1.2021 on the following substantial question of law : 4 “Whether both the Courts below are justified in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs by recording a finding which is perverse to the record? 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that from the evidence available on record, it is evident that the sale consideration was paid by the Grandfather (Nana) of the plaintiffs namely Rameshar. He had paid Rs.10,000/- and the remaining Rs.10,000/- was arranged by the mother of the plaintiffs. She would further submit that no consideration was paid by the father of the plaintiffs - Keshav Ram. She would further submit that the consideration amount was never returned either to the mother of the plaintiffs or the grandfather. She would also submit that there was a long possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the subject land. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the trial Court has erred in recording a finding against the plaintiffs and thus, prays to allow the appeal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that respondent No.3 is a bonafide purchaser and he has purchased the subject property from the father of the plaintiffs through the sale- deed- Ex.D/1. Learned counsel further submits that during his lifetime, Keshav Ram, father of the plaintiffs, had never challenged the said sale-deed. He would further submit that there is a concurrent finding that the subject property had been purchased by Keshav Ram and he had a right to alienate the said property. Hence, the finding(s) recorded by both the Courts below is well-merited, which does not call for any interference. 5 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Admittedly, the suit property was purchased in the name of deceased- Keshav Ram through the Sale-deed-Ex.P/1 from Baratiya and Ramayi on 31.5.1990. In the plaint, it has been averred that deceased- Keshav and mother of the plaintiffs - Kunjkali Bai arranged the money to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, which they had collected by doing labour work and further, to purchase the subject land, they had also taken financial help of Rs.10,000/- from the grandfather (Nana) of the plaintiffs namely Rameshar and thereafter, a total consideration of Rs.20,000/- was paid to the seller to execute the Sale-deed- Ex.P/1. It has also been averred that on 18.6.1996, Keshav sold some part of the land i.e. Khasra No.86/5 area 0.27 acres. The said sale was never challenged. It has been further averred that though the deceased had made a promise that he would give the remaining part of the land i.e. 0..97 acres to the plaintiffs but he did not fulfill his promise. 10. From the aforesaid pleadings and evidence on record, in my opinion, the Appellate Court, while upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, has assigned cogent reasons. Even if, for the sake of argument, it may be accepted that some financial help was extended by the wife of deceased-Keshav Ram and grandfather of the plaintiffs - Rameshar, it still would not make any difference insofar as the present case is concerned. This is for the reason that the subject land was purchased in the name of Keshav and only on account of the financial support given by the above persons, the title could not be changed. Moreover, the plaintiffs have not acquired any title on the property purchased in the name of their father. 6 11. For the afore-stated reasons, I am of the considered view that merely because the father did not fulfill his promise during his lifetime, no right accrues in favour of the plaintiffs. Consequently, the plaintiffs have failed to prove any case in their favour. 12. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below. The findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and they do not call for any interference. 13. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 14. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Appeal is found to be totally devoid of any merit. It fails and is accordingly dismissed. 15. No order as to cost. 16. A decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna