Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:32197 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1 - Mrs. Sumitra, D/o Late Sanatan Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Bheekhampura, Tahsil Baramkela, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant SA No. 364 of 2020 versus 1 - Sadanand, (Dead) Through Lrs., Nil 1.1 - (A) Paharu, S/o Sadanand, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village - Ratanpali, Vijay Path, Police Station And Tahsil Baramkela, District – Raigarh (CG). 1.2 - (B) Purandhar, S/o Sadanand, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village - Ratanpali, Vijay Path, Police Station And Tahsil Baramkela, District – Raigarh (CG). 1.3 - (C) Sitiya, D/o Sadanand, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village - Taldevari, Tahsil Baramkela, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 1.4 - (D) Kamta, S/o Sadanand, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village - Budbuda, Ratanpali, Police Station And Tahsil Baramkela, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ratna, D/o Shyam, Aged About 70 Years Village - Chharpali, Tahsil Bhatli, District - Bargarh (Orissa). 3 - Mohan, S/o Mayadhar, Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Budbuda, Tahsil Baramkela, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Dasarath, S/o Brijraj, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Budbuda, Tahsil Baramkela, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chamar Singh, S/o Kurpa, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village - Vijaypur, Girdharipath, Tahsil Baramkela, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Collector, Raigarh, District – Raigarh (CG). (Ghurau Has Died During Pendency Of Appeal And His Name Has Already Been Deleted But Name Wrongly Mentioned In Serial No. 03 Of Appellate Court ... Respondents Judgment. (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System) For Appellant For State/Respondent No.6 : Mrs. Mandvi Bhardwaj, Panel Lawyer.
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment On Board 11/07/2025 Heard on admission. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 1 2 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree 2 dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Upper District Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (CG) in Civil Appeal No.10/2018 upholding the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (CG) in Civil Suit No.35-A/2011, whereby the civil suit filed by appellant/ plaintiff for declaration of title, nullity of sale deed and possession of the suit property mentioned in Schedule- ‘B’, has been rejected. 3 Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit seeking declaration and possession of ancestral/joint family property measuring 1.869 hectares situated in villages Budbuda and Vijaypur Girdhari Pat, Tehsil-Baramkela, as detailed in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint. It is the plaintiff’s case that, the property was originally recorded in the names of defendant Nos. 1 to 3, and a verbal partition occurred between defendant Nos.1 and 2 during their father’s lifetime, approximately 30-40 years prior to the institution of the suit. In pursuance thereof, defendant No.1 took possession of the land described in Schedule ‘B’, while defendant No. 2 took possession of the land described in Schedule ‘C’, and both have been in peaceful possession since then. The plaintiff alleges that defendant Nos.2 and 4, acting in collusion and with mala fide intent, executed registered sale deeds dated 19-06-2002 and 27-08-2009 without her or her father’s consent, and without any contractual agreement or consideration. Further, defendant No. 2 allegedly alienated parts of the suit property to defendant Nos. 5 and 7 through sale deeds dated 22-03-2002 and 15-03-2002, respectively. By filing the instant civil suit, the plaintiff has sought for relief claiming legitimate share in the joint family property, declaration of her rights therein, and the aforementioned alienations as null and void, and seeks possession of the land described in Schedule ‘B’. 3 4 The defendant No. 1 filed his written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint, stating that he has sold the land by executing 7 sale deeds to meet his own needs and has handed over possession of the same to the purchasers and this fact was very well in the knowledge of the plaintiff. 5 In their joint written statement, defendants Nos.2 and 4 to 7 have denied all averments of the plaint and have reiterated the objections previously raised by defendant No 1. By way of a consequential amendment in response to the amended plaint, it has been specifically pleaded that the entire suit land was lawfully sold by late Sanatan during his lifetime. Accordingly, the defendants have prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6 The trial court had dismissed the plaintiff’s claim by judgment dated 28.02.2013, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove her case. Aggrieved by the said decision, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Additional District Court, Raigarh. Vide judgment dated 23.08.2014, the Appellate Court partially allowed the appeal, set aside the trial Court’s judgment dated 28.02.2013, and remanded the matter with a direction to implead all necessary parties and decide the case afresh on its merits in accordance with law. Thereafter, the trial Court decided the suit vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016 (Annexure-A/2) and dismissed the suit. The appeal filed against the judgment dated 31.03.2016 preferred by the plaintiff has also been dismissed by the Appellate Court/Upper District Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh vide judgment and decree dated 31.01.2020 (Annexure-A/1), against which instant second appeal has been filed. (The parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status in the suit before the trial Court.) 4 7 Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that defendant No.1 - Sanatan, who was father of the plaintiff, has admitted in his written statement that the suit property, as mentioned in Schedule- ‘B’ annexed to the plaint, was obtained by him through mutual partition with his brother. As such, the suit property is ancestral property, therefore, the plaintiff, being the sole daughter of Sanatan (defendant No.1), was having coparcenary right over the suit property and she is entitled to claim partition during the lifetime of her father, as such, the finding recorded by both the Courts below that the plaintiff had no right to claim her share during the lifetime of her father (defendant No.1 -Sanatan), is perverse. He would further submit that the total suit property mentioned in Schedule -‘B’ is about 2.5 acres. However, during his lifetime, Sanatan (father of plaintiff) had sold whole property vide multiple sale deeds to the defendants, whereas being ancestral property, he could not have sold more than his share i.e. ½ of the property, since the plaintiff, as a coparcener, was entitled to the remaining half share of the suit property. Aforesaid facts have been proved by the plaintiff by adducing oral and documentary evidence, but the same have not been legally assessed by both the Courts below, hence, he prayed that this second appeal may be admitted for hearing on proposed substantial question of law. 8 Defendant No.1 -Sanatan, who was father of the plaintiff, has admitted in paragraph 2 of his written statement that the suit property was received by him through mutual partition with his brother during the lifetime of their father, as such, it is found that the suit property is ancestral property of plaintiff and defendant No.1, therefore, the plaintiff, being a coparcener and sole surviving legal representative (as per plaint, her two sisters died issueless) of Sanatan, was entitled to half share of the suit property under coparcenary right. Hence, she is legally entitled to get share from her father during his lifetime, as such, 5 the finding recorded by both the Courts below that the plaintiff has no right to claim her share of the suit property during lifetime of her father, is perverse and illegal. 9 So far as the challenge of legality of transfer of the suit property vide registered sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 -Sanatan in favour of other defendants are concerned, defendant No.1 -Sanatan had sold whole suit property from 2002 to 2009 to the defendants by registered sale deeds (Exs. P-3 to P-9), showing the reasons of bona fide necessity. Since Sanatan had no son, his daughter/plaintiff was married and residing at her matrimonial place and further, the suit property is only about 2.5 acres and at that time, Sanatan was aged about 75 years old, therefore, it cannot be denied that he was in need of money for his livelihood, medical purpose and other needs, therefore, it cannot be said that the suit property was sold for an unlawful purpose. Having considered this fact, it also cannot be held that defendants are not bona fide purchasers. If defendant No.1 had been selling the suit property for such long period, then the plaintiff, being his daughter, ought to have taken care of her father and prevented him from selling the property or at least, she could have filed civil suit for restraining her father to sell the suit property, but she did not do all these things and also did not take care of her father, as such, it cannot be said that selling of the suit property by Sanatan was illegal and defendants are not bona fide purchasers. 10 In view of above, no substantial question of law is found to be framed, hence, the second appeal is dismissed at motion stage. 11 The parties to bear their own cost. 12 The decree be drawn accordingly. 13 Records of both the Courts below be returned along with a copy of this judgment. 6 14
Decision
Pending Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.07.16 10:49:50 +0530 RUKHSAR BANO