1 - Smt. Teejan Bai W/o Bhukaloo, D/o Teejau (Died And Deleted). 2 v. 1 - Bhagwat S/o Dakhal Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Khajuri
Case Details
1 RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.08.22 10:33:03 +0530 2025:CGHC:41102 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 325 of 2020 1 - Smt. Teejan Bai W/o Bhukaloo, D/o Teejau (Died And Deleted). 2 - Bangadas S/o Bhukaloo (wrongly mentioned as S/o Teejau) Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Bhunda, Tahsil Takhatpur And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Bhagwat S/o Dakhal Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Khajuri (Navagaon) Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Soniya Bai Wd/o Jethuram Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Bhunda, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Santosh Kumar S/o Jethuram Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Bhunda, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sarswati Kumari D/o Jethuram Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bhunda, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Satish Kumar S/o Jethuram Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Bhunda, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System) For Appellant For State/Respondent No.2 : Mrs. Mandvi Bhardwaj, Panel Lawyer.
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ravi Maheshwari, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment On Board 14/08/2025 1 Heard on admission. 2 2 This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2020 passed by the Sixth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (CG) in Civil Appeal No.35-A/2019 upholding the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2019 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (CG) in Civil Suit No.66A/2011, whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the civil suit filed by appellants/ plaintiffs for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land. (The parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status in the suit before the trial Court.) 3 Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that the suit land bearing Khasra No.214, 177/2 & 177/3, area 1.44, 0.02 & 0.02 acres respectively situated at Village Bhunda, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (CG), is an ancestral property of plaintiff No.1 -Teejan Bai, which was obtained by her father -Teejau in partition. He would further submit that plaintiff No.2 -Bangadas is son of plaintiff No.1 -Teejan Bai. Further, Dakhal, who is brother of Teejau, had purchased the suit land bearing Khasra No.177/2 & 177/3 vide registered sale deeds (Ex. P-13 & Ex. P-14) respectively in the name of plaintiff No.2 -Bangadas, but since at that time, Bangadas was minor, therefore, Dakhal had got registered sale deed in his own name. He further submitted that the suit land bearing Khasra No.214 is an ancestral property of Teejan Bai, but defendant No.1 -Bhagwat, who is son of Dakhal, has got mutated the suit land bearing Khasra No.214 in his name in revenue record, thereafter, he had sold the same, whereas he has no right to sell aforesaid land. The plaintiffs are in possession over the suit land bearing Khasra No.177/2 & 177/3, but on Khasra No.214, they are not in 3 possession. Learned counsel further submitted that plaintiffs have filed the civil suit for declaration of their title and permanent injunction over the suit land and they have proved that the suit land bearing Khasra No.214 is an ancestral property of them, therefore, defendant No.1 -Bhagwat has no right to sell the aforesaid land. Likewise, other two suit lands have been purchased by Dakhal for plaintiff No.2 -Bangadas, despite that, both the Courts below have dismissed the civil suit filed by plaintiffs, hence he prays that this appeal may be admitted for hearing on proposed substantial question of law. 4 Perusal of registered sale deeds (Ex. P-13 & Ex. P-14) shows that the suit land bearing Khasra No.177/2 & 177/3 were purchased by Dakhal in his own name. No substantive evidence has been brought by plaintiffs to prove the fact that those lands were purchased by Dakhal for plaintiff No.2- Bangadas. Only on the basis of baseless statement, aforesaid fact cannot be held proved. 5 Though plaintiffs have filed Kishtbandi Khatauni of the year 1954-55 (Ex. P-1), which shows that Dular Sai was owner of the suit land bearing Khasra No.214, and after his death, it was recorded in the name of his sons namely; Dakhal, Manohar & Teejau, but no any document has been filed by plaintiffs that after the year 1954-55, what happened about aforesaid suit land i.e., whether it was partitioned among aforesaid three brothers or the same was sold etc. Though plaintiffs have stated that all three suit lands have been mutated by defendant No.1 -Bhagwat in his name without any right, but as contended by learned counsel for the appellants, defendant No.1 -Bhagwat is son of Dakhal, therefore, he is natural successor of Dakhal, hence recording of the suit land bearing Khasra No.177/2 & 177/3 in the name of Bhagwat does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. 4 6 So far as the suit land bearing Khasra No.214 is concerned, as per plaintiffs, it has been sold by defendant No.1 -Bhagwat, but neither alleged purchaser has been impleaded in instant civil suit nor sale deed pertaining to aforesaid sale has been filed, whereas as per Ex. P-8 i.e. Khasra Panchshala of the year 2008-09 to 2009-10, the land bearing Khasra No.214/1 Rakba 1.44 acre has been recorded in possession of defendant No.1 -Bhagwat. Pleadings and contention of learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs are very vague in this regard. Vasiyatnama (Ex. P-10) allegedly executed by Dakhal in the name of plaintiff No.2 -Bangadas, has also not been duly proved by examining attesting witnesses, as such, it cannot be held to be proved that the same has been duly executed and attested. 7 The trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have considered the case on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and there is concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below, which is not found to be suffered from any perversity or illegality. 8 On due consideration, no substantial question of law is found to be framed in instant appeal, hence, the same is dismissed at motion stage. 9 The parties to bear their own cost. 10 The decree be drawn accordingly. 11 Records of both the Courts below be returned along with a copy of this judgment. 12
Decision
Pending Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar