Raipur (C.G.) v. 1. Radha Bai W/o Late Baldev Gond, Aged about 39 years 2. Domar S/o
Case Details
1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR SA No. 376 of 2004 1. Ganpat S/o Damarudhar Kond, Aged about 50 years, R/o Village Mahulkot, P.S. & Teh. : Devbhog, Dist : Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Radha Bai W/o Late Baldev Gond, Aged about 39 years 2. Domar S/o Baldev Gond, Aged about 13 years, Through Minor Mother Radha Bai W/o Late Baldev Gond. 3. Parmeshevar S/o Baldev, Aged about 9 years, Through Minor Mother Radha Bai W/o later Baldev Gond All R/o Village & Post Mahulkot P.S. & Tahsil Devbhog, Distr : Raipur – (C.G.) 4. State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Collector, Raipur – (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 18-07-2025 1) Heard on admission. 2) The appellant/plaintiff has preferred this second appeal, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Appeal No. 24-A/2003 dated 12.02.2004 whereby the regular appeal preferred by the appellant against 2 judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge – Class-I, Gariyaband in Civil Suit No. 67-A/2002 dated 01.04.2003 was affirmed. 3) Facts of the present case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession, if the plaintiff is not found in possession of the suit land. The suit land is Khasra No. 241 ad- measuring 0.40 hectare situated at Village–Mahulkot. P.H. No. 06, Tahsil–Devbhog, District–Gariyaband. Plaintiff pleaded that a lease-deed pertaining to the suit property was granted in his favor twenty years ago and the lease-deed pertaining to Khasra No. 242 was granted in favor of Baldeo [the husband of defendant No. 1] but after his death, a revenue proceeding was initiated and the Tehsildar, Devbhog vide order dated 12.01.1999, deleted the name of plaintiff and recorded the name of defendant No. 1 in revenue records against Khasra No. 241. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff before SDO(R), Gariyaband, and it was dismissed vide order dated 29.07.1999. Plaintiff has further pleaded that the suit property was leased out to him; therefore, there was no occasion for the Tehsildar or the Settlement Officer to cancel the lease-deed. It is also pleaded that no opportunity of hearing was afforded by the Tehsildar, Devbhog, while passing the order dated 12.01.1999. Defendants No. 1 to 3 filed a written statement and denied the plaint averments. They pleaded that the suit property is the ancestral property and after the death of defendant No. 1’s husband, they inherited it, but the plaintiff, in a clandestine manner, got recorded his name in the revenue records. They also pleaded that an application was moved before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Gariyaband, and an order was passed in favour of defendant No. 1 on 06.06.1995, and 3 pursuant to the said order, the Tehsildar, Devbhog, deleted the name of the plaintiff and entered the name of defendants No. 1 to 3. The Trial Court framed issues; parties led evidence, and thereafter dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 01.04.2003. Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred a first appeal before the learned District Judge, Raipur, and the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 12.02.2004. 4) In the instant second appeal, appellant/plaintiff has moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for taking additional evidence on record. Plaintiff has annexed a copy of Rin Pustika, revenue records and a map to demonstrate that the suit land was recorded in the name of the plaintiff; therefore, he has the right over it. 5) Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that a lease-deed was granted in favor of the plaintiff way back in the year 1983-84, and he was in possession of that land. He further submits that behind the back of the plaintiff, an application was moved by defendant No. 1 before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Gariyaband and the same was allowed without the issuance of a notice. He contends that pursuant to such order, the Tehsildar, Devbhog, deleted the name of the plaintiff and entered the name of defendant No. 1 in the revenue records against Khasra No. 241. He further contends that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the plaintiff by the Tehsildar and the procedure contemplated under Sections 109 & 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 was not followed, but the learned Courts below have not considered this aspect. He prays to admit this appeal. 6) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. He supports the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Raipur, 4 dated 12.02.2004. 7) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8) Perusal of the record would show that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and further sought possession if he is not found in possession. It is pleaded that a lease-deed pertaining to Khasra No. 241 was granted in favor of the plaintiff in the year 1983-84, but no document has been placed on record to prove the same. From a perusal of the record, it is clear that the Assistant Settlement Officer passed the order in favour of defendant No. 1 on 06.06.1995, and thereafter, the Tehsildar, Devbhog, vide order dated 12.01.1999, deleted the name of the plaintiff and recorded the name of defendant No. 1 against Khasra No. 241. Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the SDO(R), Gariyaband and the same was dismissed vide order dated 29.07.1999. 9) From the above-discussed facts, it is clear that the appellant has not challenged the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, which led to the subsequent orders passed by the revenue authorities. Plaintiff has not challenged the procedural part adopted by the revenue authorities in this suit. 10) Now coming to the application moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, whereby the appellant wants to adduce copies of Rin Pustika, revenue documents and the map, but such documents do not confer any right in the absence of any title. Plaintiff has failed to produce a copy of the lease-deed granted in his favour in the year 1983-84; therefore, these documents cannot be admitted as additional documents at this stage. Accordingly, the application moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC is rejected. 5 11) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal/ Consequently, this second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 12) A decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.23 14:17:12 +0530