2026:CGHC:1390 NAFR D si i g g n it e a d l l b y y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR RAHULR JH A A HUL JHA Date:

2026.01.12 17:15:18 +0530 SA No. 129 of 2015

1 - Smt. Nirmani Wd/o Late Hari Narayan Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Matkot, Tahsil Tokapal, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

2 - Smt. Neelawati W/d/o Late Hari Narayan Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Matkot, Tahsil Tokapal, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

Appellant(s)

Versus

1 - Smt. Munni Bai And Ors. D/o Jagat Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Matkot, Marigudapara Tahsil Tokapal, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

2 - Smt. Parwati D/o Jagat Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Matkot, Patel Para, Tahsil Tokapal, District Bastar Chhattsgarh

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh D/o Through- District Collector, Bastar Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.

Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Resp No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For State : Mr. Ritesh Giri, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board

09/01/2026

1. The present Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No. 8-A/2012 (Smt. Nirmani & Anr. v. Smt. Munni Bai & Others) by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bastar, whereby the First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2011 passed in Civil Suit No. 12- A/2009 (Smt. Munni Bai v. Smt. Nirmani & Others) by the learned Trial Court. The present appeal has been preferred by defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who are the appellants herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

2. The instant Second Appeal was admitted by this Court on 14.03.2023 on the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether both the learned Courts below were justified in allowing the civil suit of the plaintiff, whereas the suit was barred by limitation? 2. Whether the learned Courts below were justified in allowing the civil suit of the plaintiff despite the fact that the suit suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties?”

3. The material facts, which are largely undisputed, are that agricultural land situated at Village Matkot bearing Khasra Nos. 22, 38 and 55/1 admeasuring 4.66 acres, land at Village Bade Arapur admeasuring 11.44 acres and land at Village Telenga Arapur admeasuring 5.83 acres, in all measuring 21.93 acres, was originally recorded in the name of Dribnath, son of Durga Prasad, in the revenue records of the year 1932-33. After the death of Dribnath, his only daughter Daymati succeeded the said property and her name was recorded in the revenue records in the year 1986-87. It is further an admitted position that Daymati was married to Jagat Singh and had two daughters and one son, namely Munni Bai (plaintiff) & Parwati (defendant No.4) and Harinarayan (who is the husband of both defendants No.1 & 2). It is also not in dispute that the Naib Tahsildar, Keshloor, while deciding the mutation application filed by Munni Bai i.e. the plaintiff, passed an order on 08.11.2006 to adduce the evidence, against which the revision was filed by the defendants, which was allowed and the order passed by the Naib Tehsildar was set-

aside.

Before the Trial Court, plaintiff Munni Bai pleaded that the suit property, which originally belonged to her maternal grandfather Dribnath, devolved upon her mother Daymati and thereafter she, along with her sister Parwati and brother Harinarayan, became entitled to succeed the said property. It was pleaded that the defendants/appellants are the wives of deceased Harinarayan and that Daymati had kept the plaintiff’s husband Devanath as ‘Gharjamai’ for looking after agricultural operations. According to the plaintiff, after the death of Harinarayan in the year 2005, the defendants obstructed her from cultivating the land, whereupon she came to know that