SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ganesh Ram – Appellant
Versus
Safedram Pradhan – Respondent
SA/99/2016



##PAGE1##

1

SOURABH

2026:CGHC:6367

BHILWAR

Digitally signed by NAFR

SOURABH

BHILWAR

Date: 2026.02.06

17:08:43 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

SA No. 99 of 2016

Ganesh Ram S/o Late Rajaram, Aged About 40 Years Caste- Kolta, R/o

Village Gosaideeh, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh,

Chhattisgarh .....Defendant No.1

... Appellant

versus

1 - Safedram Pradhan S/o Late Rajaram, Aged About 55 Years Caste

Kolta, R/o Village Gosaideeh, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh,

Chhattisgarh.....Plaintiff

2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Raigarh, District-

Raigarh, Chhattisgarh....Defendant No.2

…. Respondent(s)

(Cause title is taken from CIS)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate

For Respondent No.1 : Mr. S.A. Ansari, Advocate

For Respondent/State : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

Judgment on Board

04/02/2026

1. The present Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the impugned

judgment and decree dated 16.12.2015 passed by the learned 4th

##PAGE2##

2

Additional District Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 242-

A/2014 (Ganesh Ram vs. Safedram Pradhan & Anr.), affirming the

judgment and decree dated 06.11.2013 passed by the learned

Civil Judge, Class-I, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.), in Civil

Suit No. 6-A/2010, whereby the civil appeal filed by the appellant/

defendant No.1 was dismissed. The present appeal has been

preferred by the appellant/ defendant No.1. For the sake of

convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per

their status before the Trial Court.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration of title, possession,

and permanent injunction, pleading inter alia that the suit property,

being Khasra No. 6, area 2.696 hectares, was purchased by his

father, late Rajaram, from Usha and Radha for a valuable

consideration, which was fully paid and registration of the sale

deed was to be done jointly in the names of plaintiff and

defendant No.1. It is further pleaded that the defendant No.1, by

deceit, had the property registered solely in his name and

unlawfully claimed additional portions of the land. The plaintiff

further pleads that after his father’s death on 06.07.2007, the

defendant No.1 obstructed the plaintiff from cultivating the land,

despite prior division of the property under a settlement deed

dated 19.01.2007 and decisions taken in a Panchayat meeting,

including transfer of proceeds and partition of the house. Hence,

the plaintiff sought declaration of title, confirmation of possession

and permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from

##PAGE3##

3

interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of the suit property.

3. Per contra, Defendant No.1, in his written statement, while

denying the entire claim of the plaintiff, contended that the plaintiff

had falsely represented himself as belonging to a tribal community

to secure employment in the Police Department and voluntarily

resigned upon discovery by higher authorities. It was further

pleaded that due to proceedings under Section 170(ख) of the

Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, approximately 10.5 acres of

land in villages Beldagi and Amdala were reverted to tribal

persons, and that the financial obligations of Rajaram, the father

of the parties, including the marriages of the plaintiff and four

sisters of Defendant No.1, weakened his financial position,

necessitating sale of lands. Defendant No.1 denied that the lands

described in Schedule “B” were sold by Rajaram and stated that

he executed the sale deed in his own name with financial

assistance from his father-in-law. He also denied that the lands in

Schedule “A” were partitioned between him and the plaintiff and

submitted that the plaintiff had failed to implead his four sisters as

necessary parties. Accordingly, Defendant No.1 prayed that the

suit be dismissed on the grounds of non-joinder of necessary

parties and limitation.

4. After framing the issues and upon due appreciation of the oral as

well as documentary eviden

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top