Digitally signed 2024:CGHC:39341 by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No. 433 of 2007

1. Mangal son of late Ram Singh, aged about 35 years

2. Jhangal son of late Ram Singh, aged 30 years Both by caste Kanwar, Both are resident of Village Jogisar, Tahsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Appellants/Defendants Versus

1. Kamol Singh son of Chhatar Singh, aged about 53 years – Since died Through LRs: -

01. (A) Jim Kunwar Wd/ Kamol Singh aged about 60 years

02. (B) Heera Lal S/o Kamol Singh aged about 40 years

03. (C) Biharilal S/o Kamol Singh aged about 35 years All resident of Village Jogisar, Tehsil Pendraroad, District Gurela-Pendra-Marwahi

2. Shiv Singh Son of Chhatar Singh, aged 49 years

3. Bishul Singh son of Chhatar Singh, aged 47 years

4. Sidhun Singh son of Chhatar Singh, aged 43 years All by caste- Kanwar, All resident of Village Jogisar, Tahsil Pendra Road, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Respondents/Plaintiffs For Appellants/Defendants : Mr. H.V. Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/Plaintiffs : Mr. Dheerendra Mishra, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board

04.10.2024

1. The appellants/defendants have assailed the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.), in Civil Appeal No. 08-A/2002 dated 05.09.2007, whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was allowed.

2. This appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:-

“i) Whether the finding of the lower Appellate Court that the suit lands are the ancestral property among the plaintiffs and the defendants, is based on no legal evidence on record.?”

3. The original plaintiff, namely, Chhatar Singh filed a civil suit for declaration of ½ share over the suit property, situated at Village Tilora, Patwari Circle No. 30, Revenue Circle Pendra, Tehsil Pendraroad, District Bilaspur bearing Survey Nos. 50, 64, 66, 71/2, 109/4, 126/2, 124, 147, 181/2, 183 and 197/3 total admeasuring 17.05 acres. The plaintiff pleaded that he and the defendants are family members. Shivnath Singh got the suit land from the Late Sirdar Singh and the forefathers of the parties were one and the same family. It is pleaded that the plaintiffs and defendants were in possession of their respective shares according to partition. The defendants in a clandestine manner got recorded their names in the revenue records and started interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. On 27.12.1992, the plaintiff obtained revenue records from Patwari then he came to know about the revenue entries in favor of the defendants and on 25.10.1995, the defendants restrained the original plaintiff from harvesting the crop.

4. The defendants filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. It is stated that the suit property is the exclusive property of Sriram S/o Shivnath. The defendants further pleaded that the suit property was recorded in the names of Sirdar Singh and Sriram prior to independence and there was a partition between them. It is further pleaded that the son of Sirdar Singh, namely, Manohar Singh got the share of Sirdar Singh, whereas Ram Singh @ Kothi succeeded to the property of Sriram and after his death, defendant No. 1 became the owner of the property.

5. The learned trial Court framed issues and held that the plaintiff could not prove the fact that the suit property is a joint property owned by the plaintiff and the defendants. It is also not proven that the suit property is the self-acquired property of Sriram. The learned trial Court further held that the plaintiff is not entitled to get ½ share in the suit property and the defendants are not entitled to get the cost of Rs.5000/- and thus, dismissed the civil suit.

6. The original plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned first appellate Court. During the pendency of the first appeal, the original plaintiff, namely, Chhatar Singh expired and the application for su