Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:2124 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 37 of 2025 1. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey S/o Late Komal Prasad Pandey Aged About 45 Years R/o Champa (Shri Krishna Goshala) Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 2. Anurag Pandey S/o Late Komal Prasad Aged About 41 Years R/o Champa (Shri Krishna Goshala) Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
3. Abhishek Pandey S/o Late Komal Prasad Aged About 39 Years R/o Champa (Shri Krishna Goshala) Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 4. Smt. Sangeeta Pandey Wd/o Late Alok Pandey Aged About 52 Years R/o Champa (Shri Krishna Goshala) Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 5. Adarsh Pandey S/o Late Alok Pandey Aged About 20 Years R/o Champa (Shri Krishna Goshala) Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 6. Archana Sharma S/o Late Alok Pandey Aged About 27 Years R/o Champa (Shri Krishna Goshala) Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 7. Aparna Pandey D/o Late Alok Pandey Aged About 23 Years R/o Champa (Shri Krishna Goshala) Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 8. Pratibha D/o Late Amita Pandey Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Their Guardian / Uncle Akhilesh Kumar Pandey / Petitioner No. 1, R/o Champa (Shri Krishna Goshala) Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 9. Parinidhi D/o Late Amita Pandey Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Their Guardian / Uncle Akhilesh Kumar Pandey / Petitioner No. 1, R/o Champa (Shri Krishna Goshala) Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 10.Shaurya S/o Late Amita Pandey Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Their Guardian / Uncle Akhilesh Kumar Pandey / Petitioner No. 1, R/o 2 Champa (Shri Krishna Goshala) Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 11. Smt. Gulababai @ Gulab Devi Pandey W/o Late Komal Prasad Aged About 74 Years Caste - Brahmin, R/o Champa (Shri Krishna Goshala) Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Ramin Bai W/o Gayadin @ Ramdin Patel Aged About 80 Years R/o Kosmanda, Tehsil Champa, Present Address Kurda, Patelpara, Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 2. Sunita Rathore W/o Akshay Kumar Rathore Aged About 57 Years R/o Behind Sinchayi Colony, Shankar Nagar Champa, Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate along with For State/ respondent No. 3 Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate : Mr. S. P.. Kale, Addl. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 14/01/2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned 1st District Judge, Janjgir-Champa in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 9/2023 dated 18.09.2024 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC has been dismissed. 2) Plaintiffs/petitioners filed a civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and cancellation of the sale-deed. They pleaded that lands bearing Khasra Nos. 1556/1 and 1556/3 ad-measuring 0.31 acre and 0.22 acre, respectively situated at Village Koshmanda, P.H. No. 505, Tehsil-Champa, District-Janjgir Champa were their exclusive 3 properties. It is further pleaded that the late Komal Prasad Pandey purchased the properties from one Ramin Bai through a registered sale-deed dated 22.06.1983 and those properties are still in possession of the plaintiffs. It is also pleaded that Ramin Bai got recorded her name in the revenue records in a clandestine manner and there is some mistake in the revenue records in this regard. Plaintiffs moved an application for temporary injunction. Learned trial Court vide order dated 28.01.2023 rejected the application. Plaintiff preferred Misc. Civil Appeal challenging the order dated 28.01.2023 and the same has been dismissed by the appellate Court vide order dated 18.09.2024. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the property was purchased by the father of the plaintiffs, namely, Komal Prasad Pandey through a registered sale-deed dated 22.06.1983 and they are still in possession. He further submits that Ramin Bai (defendant No. 1) got recorded her name in the revenue records but the entry in revenue records does not confer any right. He contends that three main ingredients for temporary injunction i.e. prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss are in favor of the petitioners, therefore, the Courts below committed an error of law in rejecting the application as well as the appeal moved by the plaintiffs for temporary injunction. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the plaintiffs failed to prove the three main ingredients for temporary injunction that are prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. He contends that the learned Court below has recorded a categorical finding to the effect that the suit property is not recorded under the 4 names of plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 is in possession of the suit property, therefore, the appeal was rightly dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents available on record. 6) The learned Court below has recorded a finding that Khasra Nos. 1556/1 and 1556/3 were purchased by Komal Prasad Pandey through a registered sale-deed dated 22.06.1983 and the order of mutation in his favor was also passed on 10.05.2008. It is also the stand of the plaintiffs/ petitioners that though they purchased Khasra No. 1556/3 but due to a mistake, it was entered as 1556/2. The learned Court below further held that with regard to incorrect entry of Khasra No. 1556/2, the father of the plaintiffs never raised any objection during his lifetime. It is also held that revenue records of the years 2019-20 and 2021-22 would show that Khasra Nos. 1556/1 and 1556/2 are recorded in the names of the plaintiffs and there is no revenue document to establish their right over Khasra No. 1556/3 and as per revenue records, the possession of defendant No. 1 is recorded over Khasra No. 1556/3. 7) Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned trial Court which have been affirmed by the learned appellate Court, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference as the plaintiffs have not been found in possession of Khasra No. 1556/3. 8) Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. Ajinkya Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE