Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.03.22 18:00:50 +0530 2025:CGHC:13545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 110 of 2016 1 – Sukdev S/o Lachu, Aged About 48 Years Occupation- Agriculturist. 2 - Anju D/o Sukdev, Aged About 21 Years. Both are R/o Village- Orkela, P.H. No. 09, R.I. Circle- Manora, Tahsil-
Legal Reasoning
Manora, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ...........Appellants Before First Appellate Court. ... Appellants/Plaintiffs. versus 1 - Anastasiya D/o Late Somra, Aged About 61 Years. 2 - Mariyam D/o Late Somra, Aged About 63 Years. 3 - Goroti D/o Simon, Aged About 36 Years. 4 - Arvidn S/o Patrik, Aged About 32 Years. 5 - Sunil S/o Patrik, Aged About 22 Years. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 Occupation- Agriculturist, R/o Village- Barupata, Post- Raikot, Tahsil And District- Jagdalpur Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Jashpur Nagar, District- Jashpur Nagar, Chhattisgarh ............Respondents Before The First Appellate Court. ... Respondent(s)/ Defendants. For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Saurabh Sahu appears on behalf of Shri Malay 2 Shrivastava, Advocates. For Respondent No.1, 3 : Shri Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate. to 5 For State : Shri TS Sahu, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 21/03/2025 1. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jashpur Nagar, District-Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) in Civil Appeal No.3A/2016, which in turn, arose out of the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2015 passed by the First Civil Judge Class-1, Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) in Civil Suit No.15A/2012. 2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs and afÏrmed the findings arrived at by the trial Court, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the suit preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration of sole title on the suit property (shown in Annexure-A of the plaint) as also for confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. 3. Facts of the case are that the parties belong to tribal caste Uraon (उरांव) and as per their social custom, in the absence of male child, the husband of the daughter would reside as Ghar Jamai. It is further mentioned that late Somra had no son and four daughters. Somra kept the husband-Simon of his daughter Lurangi, as Ghar Jamai. Thereafter, Simon and Lurangi also had no male issue but two daughters viz Defendant No.3-Goroti and Ilisiba. Plaintiff-Sukdev married with Ilisiba and started residing as Ghar Jamai in the family of Lurangi and Simon, therefore, being a Ghar Jamai, Sukdev is the absolute owner of the suit property and on such averments 3 suit has been filed. 4. In the written statement filed by the defendants, it has been categorically averred that Ilisiba was married with one Basu (DW-2) and when Basu had gone for some work to Nagaland State, Ilisiba started living with Plaintiff No.1-Sukdev as wife, as per the custom, in the form of Dhuku (ढू कू ). Hence, plaintiff has not accrued any right over the subject property. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed as many as 6 issues and after evaluating evidence available on record reached to the conclusion that plaintiffs have failed to establish their case and accordingly dismissed the suit which was afÏrmed by the First Appellate Court. Hence this Second Appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence in their proper perspective. He further submits that plaintiffs have duly proved the custom prevailing in the Uraon (उरांव) caste that when there is no son in the family then the husband of the daughter could be brought as a Ghar Jamai who would have absolute right over the property of daughter’s father. 7. When a query was put to learned counsel for the appellants, he fairly admits, that in the written statement, there is specific averment that Ilisiba was married with one Basu (DW-2) who had gone for work to Nagaland State. 8. In the plaint, there is no pleading made by the plaintiffs as regards Dhuku (ढू कू ) custom in which when a man--resides with a lady who is already married whose husband has gone out to different State--also perfects title over the property of her father. When the said query was put to learned counsel for the appellants, he fairly admits that such pleading has not been 4 made and such evidence has also not been controverted by the plaintiffs/appellants. 9. It is well established that when there is a concurrent finding of fact, unless it is found to be perverse, the Court should not ordinarily interfere with the said finding. 10.In the matter of State of Rajasthan and others v. Shiv Dayal and another, reported in {(2019) 8 SCC 637}, reiterating the settled proposition, it has been held that when any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded de hors the pleadings or based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 12.There is want of specific pleading about Dhuku (ढू कू ) custom of the marriage in which form the appellant/plaintiff/Sukdev got married with Ilisiba. It has been established that Ilisiba was married to Basu (DW-2) who had gone for some work to Nagaland State and in whose absence, Ilisiba started residing with appellant/plaintiff/Sukdev and only on such basis, appellants/plaintiffs are claiming title over the subject property as absolute owners, but there is no such pleading. Hence, this Court is of the view that both the Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit and this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the said finding which would warrant inference by this Court. 13.For the foregoing, I find absolutely no merit in this appeal, involving no 5 question of law much less any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the CPC. 14.Accordingly, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.
Decision
15.There shall be no order as to costs. 16.A decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash