Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:44266 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 9 of 2020 1 - Tengnuram S/o Late Hariram Aged About 52 Years Caste- Kenwat, R/o Village Bamhanidih, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sonu S/o Maniram Aged About 30 Years Caste- Kenwat, R/o Village Bamhanidih, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt Vinita D/o Maniram Aged About 25 Years W/o Dwasram, Caste- Kenwat, R/o Village Bamhanidih, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ku. Sarita D/o Maniram Aged About 18 Years Caste- Kenwat, R/o Village Bamhanidih, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ku. Ranjita D/o Maniram Aged About 16 Years (Minor) Legal Guardian Smt Neerabai, Widow/o Maniram, Aged 50 Years, Caste- Kenwat, R/o Village Bamhanidih, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ku. Anita D/o Maniram Aged About 14 Years (Minor) Legal Guardian Smt Neerabai, Widow/o Maniram, Aged 50 Years, Caste- Kenwat, R/o Village Bamhanidih, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., 7 - Smt Neerabai Widow/o Maniram Aged About 50 Years Caste- Kenwat, R/o Village Bamhanidih, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Sammelal S/o Hariram Aged About 37 Years Caste- Kenwat, R/o Village Bamhanidih, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 9 - Bihari S/o Hariram Aged About 35 Years Caste- Kenwat, R/o Village Bamhanidih, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 10 - Ghunaru S/o Hariram Aged About 34 Years Caste- Kenwat, R/o Village Bamhanidih, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 11 - Shukwara Bai Widow/o Hariram Aged About 70 Years Caste- Kenwat, R/o Village Bamhanidih, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 12 - Smt Gurwari Bai D/o Hariram Aged About 40 Years Caste- Kenwat, R/o Village Mirchit, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
... Appellants/Plaintiffs versus BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.09.03 11:33:23 +0530 2 1 - Mohmmaddin S/o Gulam Khan Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Bamhanidih, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Janjgir-Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents/Defendants For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State : Ms. Mandvi Bharadwaj, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment On Board 01.9.2025 1. 2. Heard on admission. This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ plaintiffs under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.9.2019 (Annexure-A/1) passed by Second Additional District Judge, Janjgir Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG) in Civil Appeal No.49A/2019, upholding judgment and decree dated 26.4.2019 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Champa, Distt. Janjgir-Champa in Civil Suit No.29A/2013, whereby civil suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title and grant of possession in suit land, has been dismissed. (For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status before the trial Court) 3. Facts of the case, in brief are that, Anandram, grand father of the plaintiffs, was in possession of the land bearing Khasra No.84 area 1.14 acre situated at village Bamhanidih PH No.18 Tah. Champa Distt. Janjgir- Champa (hereinafter referred as ‘the suit land’) on mourusi hak. He had obtained possession from Jamindar Ram Saran Singh in the year 1928-29, which is evident from certified copy of Jamabandhi (Ex-P/1) of the year 1928- 29. Anandram died in the year 1975 and after his death, his son Hariram 3 succeeded the suit property . Hariram died in the year 2006. After his death, the plaintiffs were in possession over the suit land till 2011. But in the year 2011, defendant No.2 Mohamadduin got mutated the suit land in his name on the ground that he has purchased the suit land from defendant No.1 Chhotelal. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed application for correction of records before the Additional Tehsildar Bamhnidih, which was rejected on the basis of registered sale deed dated 26.3.2001 (Ex-D/3) executed in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of the suit land. The plaintiffs challenged the above order before Sub Divisional Officer, Champa, which was rejected on 10.5.2013 on the ground that he has no right to challenge the entry in the record of rights in the revenue Court. Aggrieved by this Order, the plaintiffs filed civil suit for declaration of their title and grant of possession of the suit land. 4. Defendants No.1 & 2 filed their joined written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiffs and stated that defendant No.1 had possession of the suit land since 1954-55, since the time of his father and grand father and cultivating the same on the basis of being recorded owner of the suit land. It was further averred that grand fathers of the plaintiffs sold the the suit land after getting sale consideration and handed over the possession of the suit land to Mohna and after the death of Mohna names of defendant No.1 Chhotelal and his brother Champalal were entered in the revenue record. In 2001 vide registered sale deed dated 26.3.2001 (Ex-D/3), Chhotelal with consent of his brother Champalal executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 and handed over the possession to him. Since then, defendant No.2 has been cultivating in the suit land. 5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as 09 issues, recorded evidence of both the parties and after 4 considering the same, dismissed the civil suit filed by the plaintiffs holding therein that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit property is the ancestor property of the plaintiffs and they are entitled to obtain title and possession of the same from defendant No.2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred Civil Appeal No.49A/2019 before Second Additional District Judge, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 17.9.2019 upholding the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, against which, instant second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though in the Adhikar Abhilekh of the year 1954 (Ex-D/1), the suit land was recorded in the name of Mohna, S/o. Rodiya and after his death, it was recorded in the name of Chhotelal and Champalal, both are sons of Mansiya, but defendants have failed to prove the fact that when in the Jamabandhi of the year 1928-29, the suit land was recorded in the name of Anandram, how did it come to be recorded in the name of Mohna and subsequently in the names of Chhotelal and Champalal. He further submits that Anandram and his descendants were in continuous possession over the suit land till 2011 and aforesaid fact has been proved by the plaintiff and his witnesses. Despite that the learned trial Court has dismissed the civil suit only on the ground that the suit land has not been recorded in the name of Anandram in Adhikar Abhilekh (Ex-D/1), rather it was recorded in the name of defendant No.1 Chhotelal and his brother Champalal, which is perverse to the evidence available on record. Hence, it is prayed that instant appeal may be admitted for hearing on the proposed substantial question of law. 5 7. When specific question was posed to learned counsel for the appellants that whether they filed or proved any revenue documents to demonstrate the fact that Anandram and his successors were in possession of the suit land till 2011, then he submits that no such documents have been filed or proved by them. 8. Though in the Jamabandhi of the Year 1928-29 (Ex-P/1), the suit land was recorded in the name of Anandram on Mourusi hak, but after abolition of Jamindari in the year 1950, Adhikar Abhilekh of 1954 was prepared and names of persons who were having possession over the land were recorded in their names. In the instant case, as per the certified copy of the Adhikar Abhilekh (Ex-D/1), earlier the suit land was recorded in the name of Mohna, S/o. Rodiya and after his death, it was recorded in the name of Chhotelal and Champalal, both sons of Mansiya. The plaintiffs have not adduced any revenue documents to prove the fact that after 1928-29 till 2011, Anandram and his successors were in possession over the suit land, rather defendant No.1 has not only filed Adhikar Abhilekh (Ex-D/1), but has also filed certified copy of Khasra Panchsala of the year 2001-02 (Ex-D/2) of the suit land, which also shows possession of defendant No.1 over the suit land and vide registered sale deed dated 26.3.2001 (Ex-D/3), defendant No.1 had sold it to defendant No.2 and thereafter the suit land has been recorded in the name of defendant No.2 as per Ex-D/4, D/5, D/6 & D/7. 9. Except Jamabandhi of the year 1928-29, the plaintiffs have not filed or proved any revenue documents. If Anandram and his successors were in possession over the suit land from 1928-29 to 2011, then they ought to have got prepared rinpustika and also got mutated the suit land in their names in revenue records like Khasra and B1. Further they would have deposited lagan and other taxes and would have filed such documents to 6 substantiate their claim of title and possession. But except Ex-P/1, they have not filed any documents to prove their title and possession over the suit land. 10. Evidence adduced by both the parities have considered by the trial Court as well as by the first appellate Court in detail, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 11.
Decision
In view of the above discussion, no question of law is found to be involved in the instant appeal, hence the appeal is dismissed at the motion stage. 12. 13. A Decree be drawn accordingly. Records of both the Courts below be returned forthwith. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini