Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Narayan S/o Late Shri Ransai Gonda – Appellant
Versus
Guranjan (Dead) through LRs. Shiva Charan – Respondent
S.A. No. 584 of 2003
Decided On : 09-02-2023
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 100 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 49 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 17 and 17(i)(b) - Evidence Act - Sections 91 and 90 - Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 - Section 2(19) - Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 – Second Appeal - Suit for declaration of title and partition - Self-acquired property - Whether the Courts below were justified in recording a finding against the plaintiff (Ex.D/8) without valid proof of its contents in accordance with law - Whether both the Courts below are justified in holding that the plaintiff's father and his grand-father were not related with and his family and thereby refused to grant decree in favour of the plaintiff, also relying upon Ex.D/8 by recording a perverse finding - Where in a suit for permanent injunction the plaintiff had pleaded possession from the year 1942 and the defendant had admitted the possession of the plaintiff from 1965 though it was contended that they had reentered the property after being evicted in 1965 (Para 13.3).
Finding of the Court: Legal position and on reasserting the position that there is very limited scope for re-appreciating the evidence or interfering with the finding of fact rendered by the trial court and the first appellate court in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is necessary for us to take note as to whether in the instant facts the High Court has breached the said settled position. To that extent the factual aspects and the evidence tendered by the parties has already been noted above in brief. Further, what is distinct in the present facts of the case is that the finding rendered by the learned Munsif (Trial Court) and by the learned District Judge (First Appellate Court) are divergent. The trial court on taking note of the pleadings and the evidence available before it was of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove exclusive possession and, in such light, held that the entitlement for permanent injunction has not been established. While arriving at such conclusion the trial court had taken note of the right as claimed by the plaintiff and in that background had arrived at the conclusion that except for the say of plaintiff as PW-1 there was no other evidence.
Result: Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
1. This second appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the C.P.C. against judgment and decree dated 22.08.2003 passed by First Additional District Judge, Surajpur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 8A/2003 (Narayan vs. Guranjan and Others) affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2002 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Surajpur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 42A/1997 by which the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in Civil Suit No. 42A/1997 which was filed for declaration of title and partition.
3. The instant Second Appeal is admitted for hearing by this Court vide its order dated 07.11.2016 on framing substantial question of law and on additional substantial question of law framed on 19.08.2021, which are as under:
2. Whether both the Courts below are justified in holding that the plaintiff's father Ransai and his grand-father Thoi were not related with Ashadhi and his family and thereby refused to grant decree in favour of the plaintiff, also relying upon Ex.D/8 by recording a perverse finding?”
4. The brief facts, as reflected from the plaint averments, are that the plaintiff has filed civil suit for declaration of title and partition against the defendants mainly contending that the property situated at Village-Champak Nagar, Patwari Halka No. 51B Revenue Circle- Surajpur, Tahsil and District-Surajpur described in Schedule-A of the plaint is the self-acquired property of father of plaintiff namely Late Ransai, father of the defendants namely Amarsai and Navalsai. The property described in this paragraph will be referred to as suit property in subsequent paragraph.
5. It has been further contended that grand-father of the plaintiff and defendants namely Late Thoi and Late Asadhi had expired prior to Surguja State Survey Settlement. The lease of Surguja State Survey Settlement was prepared in the name of Amarsai, Navalsai S/o Asadhi and Ransai S/o Thoi. Late Asadhi and Thoi were real brothers and were doing agriculture work in the suit property and after death of Late Asadhi and Thoi, the lease of Surguja State Survey Settlement was recorded in the name of Late Amarsai, Navalsai S/o Asadhi and Late Ransai S/o Thoi. It has been further contended that father of plaintiff and defendant have received the lease of Surguja State Survey Settlement in common title and genealogy of the family has also been described in the plaint to demonstrate that they belonged to one family. It has been further contended that the suit property was not partitioned as plaintiff's father and defendant's father have good relationship and there was no dispute between them. After death of plaintiff's father and defendant's father, the dispute arose. The plaintiff requested the defendants repeatedly for partition, but they refused to do so on the pretext that on 11.02.1949, a Panchayat was conducted in which, it has been decided that 5 acres land will be given to Late Ransai, which has been accepted by Late Ransai. It has also been decided that now Late Amarsai, Navalsai & Late Ransai have no family relationship.
6. On the basis of so called Panchayat, the defendants have moved an application before revenue officer for correction of record, but since it was illegal and forged, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Surajpur has not corrected the document and returned the Panchnama Rasid to them. When it was brought to the notice of the plaintiff, he moved an application for mutation before Tahsildar, Surguja and then the defendants have filed civil suit and obtained stay on 09.08.1992 wherein it has been stated that neither the plaintiff has right over the suit property nor possession over the suit property. During
Unregistered family partition deeds creating rights in praesenti require registration; exclusive possession by co-sharers does not confer ownership.
A document that divides property in presenti requires registration to be admissible in evidence under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act.
The burden of proof in partition suits lies with the plaintiff to establish joint family property, while unregistered sale agreements do not confer title and are inadmissible as evidence.
In mofussil litigation, courts should interpret pleadings liberally to serve substantial justice. While a plaintiff must prove title independently and cannot rely on revenue records alone, a party in....
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
