A plaintiff claiming ownership of property by way of inheritance must establish their claim through evidence, and failure to do so may result in the dismissal of their claim.

Order on board

04.01.2023

1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No.39-A/2019, whereby, the learned Appellate Court while affirming the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2019 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I Katghora, District-Korba in Civil Suit No.81-A/2014, has dismissed the appeal.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Plaintiff submits that the finding of the Courts below holding that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff was not the owner of the property in question is apparently contrary to law. While referring to the documentary evidence, particularly, Misal Bandobast, marked as Ex.P-3, for the year 1928-29, submits that a bare perusal of it would reveal the fact that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff was shown to be the owner of the property in question. However, while misinterpreting the same, the Courts below have erred in holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish the fact that he acquired the property in question by way of inheritance.

3. I have heard, learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the entire record carefully.

4. From perusal of the record, it appears that the plaintiff-Pokhraj Singh instituted a suit claiming declaration of title, injunction and also for possession with regard to the property in question bearing Khasra No. 147 admeasuring 1.05 acre (0.425 hectare) situated at village Kendaikhar, Tahsil-Katghora, District-Korba (C.G.) on the premises that the alleged land was originally held by his grandfather, namely, Ramdhan and upon his death, it was inherited by his father’s father, namely Ramsai and, thereafter it came in the name of his father and, the plaintiff has, thus, acquired his right, title and interest over it by way of inheritance. However, the plaintiff has failed to establish the same as it appears from the record that when the name of defendant no.1- Laganbai was recorded in revenue papers, an application for its correction was made by the plaintiff under Sections 115 and 116 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Court, 1959, but the same was found to be rejected by the Tahsildar, Katghora, vide its order dated 25.05.2007 (Ex.P-4/Ex.D-1) in Revenue Case No. 2-A-6/2006-07 and which has attained its finality by efflux of time as well.

5. It appears further from the document, known as Kistbandi Khatauni, B-1 (Ex. P-1) for the year 2006-07 that the property in question was shown to be recorded in the name of said defendant-Laganbai, with regard to the property in question.

6. Adhikar Abhilekh Panji produced by the plaintiff, marked as Ex.P-2, in support of his claim would, however, reveal the fact that although the name of predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff was shown therein, but, a bare perusal of the description of the properties mentioned therein, the property in question bearing khasra No. 147 admeasuring 1.05 acre was, however, not found to be placed therein. Ex.P-3 is the copy of the Misal Bandobast for the year 1928-29, and, a bare perusal of the said document would show that the name of predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, namely, Ramdhan and others was shown to be recorded as holder of its possession, as reflected from Column No.6 of it, while Column No.5, which provides for recording the name of owner, was, however, shown to be recorded in the name of someone else, namely, Lal Bhawan (Zamindar), who is admittedly not related to the plaintiff. Even the plaintiff’s witness, namely, Chamru Ram, examined as PW-2, has not supported his claim as reflected from para 8 of his testimony, where it was stated by him specifically that the suit property was not recorded in his forefather’s name since the year 1954-55. Thus, from any angle, it is difficult to hold that the plaintiff has acquired his interest over the property in question by way of inheritance. The Courts below, ther