Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
Aarati Mishra & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Shanti Lata Mishra & Ors. – Respondents
FA No. 46 of 2008
Decided On : 23-03-2022
The case involves a suit by Shanti Lata Mishra (plaintiff, mother of deceased Sandeep Mishra) against Aarati Mishra (defendant 1, widow) for declaration of equal shares (under Sections 8 & 10, Hindu Succession Act, 1956) in intestate's immovable property (suit house/land) and movables, partition, injunction, and voiding a sale deed executed by defendant 1 to defendants 2 & 3. (!) (!) (!) (!) Trial court partly decreed equal half shares in suit properties, voided sale deed to extent of plaintiff's share, but rejected preferential purchase right under Section 22 HSA. (!) (!)
Defendants appealed challenging ownership findings and sale validity; plaintiff cross-appealed for Section 22 right. (!) (!) (!) High Court dismissed appeals, allowed cross-appeal: confirmed suit house as self-acquired by deceased (sale deeds Ex. D/1 & D/2 in his name; defendant 1 failed to prove joint ownership via financial contributions); equal Class-I heir shares upheld; defendants 2 & 3 not bona fide purchasers (no public notice, aware of litigation via mediator, pendency since 2000); Section 22 violated (no notice to co-heir of transfer intent). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Cross-appeal within limitation. (!) (!)
Plaintiff's heirs granted preferential right to buy defendant 1's half share for Rs.4 lakhs (per sale deed value); defendant 1 to execute sale deed; defendants 2&3 may recover from defendant 1. (!) (!) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to trial court judgment based on appeals. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. facts supporting ownership claims over property. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. court's reasoning on ownership and preference rights. (Para 21 , 40 , 50 , 62) |
| 4. principles from landmark judgments regarding ownership. (Para 22 , 27 , 36 , 70) |
| 5. final conclusions and directives by the court. (Para 81 , 82) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant First Appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2008 (Annexure- A/1) passed by learned Ninth Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 13A/2008 (Smt. Shantilata Mishra v. Smt. Aarati Mishra & others) whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for grant of declaration, partition, separate possession to the extent of half share and also for grant of permanent injunction against appellant No. 1 has been partly allowed by the trial Court holding that (i) plaintiff and defendant No. 1 have equally share on the immovable property mentioned at Schedule-A of the plaint as well as on the house constructed over it. (ii) the movable property i.e. old Maruti Car and motor cycle mentioned at Schedule-B of the plaint, the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 have equally share (iii) prayer for payment of Rs. 1,20,000/- as well as half of the profit amounting to Rs. 10,000/- by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff in case of selling of movable property or rent earned from utilizing the Schedule-B vehicle as Taxi, has been rejected (iv) the sale-deed dated 03.05.2003 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 & 3 has been declared void to the extent of share of plaintiff and (v) prayer for granting right to preferential right under Section 22 of the HINDU SUCCESSION ACT , 1956 (for short “the Act, 1956”) has been rejected.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred to hereinafter as per their status shown in the Civil Suit No. 13A/2008 filed before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts, as reflected from plaint averments, are that plaintiff has filed the plaint on 11.07.2000 mainly contending that defendant No. 1- Smt. Aarati Mishra is widow of her son namely Sandeep Mishra. The suit land is situated at Ward No. 11 Ambedkar Nagar, Old Ward No. 8 within the boundaries of Municipal Corporation Bilaspur. It has been contended that son of the plaintiff namely Sandeep Mishra has constructed a house in the year 1992-93, which is valued at Rs. 20,00,000/-, in foregoing paragraphs the same will be called as suit house. The suit house was recorded upto 04.07.2002 in the name of plaintiff's son-Sandeep Mishra. It has been further averred in the plaint that as per provisions of the Act, 1956, the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of Section 8 of the Act, 1956. As per Section 10 of the Act 1956, the plaintiffs, defendants No. 1 & 2 are entitled to get equal share of the suit land, other movable and immovable properties as mentioned below:-
| S. No. | Description of the property | Value in Rs. |
| 1 | Maruti 800 (M.P. 26-2206) | 2,50,000/- |
| 2 | Hero Honda Splendor (MP 26 KD 1144) | 40,000/- |
| 3 | Furniture & other domestic appliances | 2,00,000/- |
| 4 | Law books, Library, Furniture, Showcase etc. | 1,00,000/- |
| 5 | Colour T.V. (Big size) | 18,000/- |
| 6 | Tape Recorder, C.D Player | 52,000/- |
| 7 | Ceiling Fan (10 Nos.) | 10,000/- |
| 8 | Life Insurance from Life Insurance Co. | 1,60,000/- |
| 9 | Deposit amount in various banks | 1,70,000/- |
|
| Total | 10,00,000/- |
4. It has been further contended that defendant No. 1 is making an attempt to sell the property of her son which has necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has filed an application for implead
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
