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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 15687

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
JAGMOHAN (Died) Through Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
INDRA KANWAR (Dead ) Though Lrs. – Respondent
SA/139/2006



##PAGE1##

1

2025:CGHC:61970

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Reserved for Judgment on : 13.10.2025

Judgment Delivered on : 23/12/2025

Judgment Uploaded on : 23/12/2025

SA No. 139 of 2006

1 - Jagmohan (Died) Through Lrs. As Per Honble Court Order Dated 16-09-

2019.

1.(A). Ramnarayan S/o Late Jagmohan Aged About 38 Years

1.(B). Dhankunwar Wd/o Late Jagmohan Aged About 75 Years

Both are R/o Village Pipara, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh.,

2 - Gedibai (Dead ) Through Lrs., As Per Court Order Dt. 16-12-2019.

2. (A) Basant (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 07-11-

2024.

2.(B) Santosh S/o Bandhu Ram Aged About 53 Years

2.-(C) Shankar Lal S/o Bandhu Ram Aged About 55 Years

All are R/o Village Karji, Post Office Patna, Police Station And Tahsil Patna,

District - Koriya Chhattisgarh.

3 - Nirasobai D/o Arjun Aged About 47 Years Caste Rajwar, R/o Village Cher,

Tahsil Baikunthpur District Koriya Chhattisgarh.

4 - Kismatiya Bai D/o Arjun Aged About 42 Years Caste Rajwar, Occupation

House Wife R/o Village Kharwat, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya

Chhattisgarh. .

--- Appellants/Plaintiffs

versus

1 - Indra Kanwar (Dead ) Though Lrs., As Per Court Order Dt. 29-07-2019.

Digitally

signed by

BALRAM

BALRAM PRASAD

PRASAD DEWANGAN

DEWANGANDate: 1.(A) Jugeshwar S/o Sundarsay Aged About 25 Years Occupation -

2025.12.23

1 +3 0: 55 39 0:11 Cultivator, Caste - Rajwar, R/o Village Kudhari , Police Station And Tahsil -

##PAGE2##

2

Bhaiyathan, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur),

Chhattisgarh

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Koriay Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents/Defendants

(Cause title is taken from CIS)

____________________________________________________________

For Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate

For Respondent No.1 (A) : None present

For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Ajay Kumrahi, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

CAV Judgment

1. This is second call of the case, first in pre-lunch session and second in

post lunch session. There is no representation on behalf of private

respondent. Order sheet of the appeal would show that earlier Mr.

Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate is causing appearance on behalf

of respondent No.1(A). He filed Vakalatnama on 25.10.2024 for

respondent No.1(A). On 15.09.2025 Mr. Utkarsh Patel, Advocate

appeared on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel and prays for time

and case was adjourned for its listing in the month of October. On

06.10.2025, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.1

A, however, the case was adjourned on the request of the learned

counsel for appellant. Today also there is no representation on behalf

of respondent No.1(A).

2. This appeal is received in remand from Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its

order dated 05.09.2023 with a direction to dispose of this second

appeal expeditiously preferably within a period of six months. In the

aforementioned facts of the case, this appeal is heard in absence of

the counsel for respondent No.1(A).

##PAGE3##

3

3. This second appeal U/s.100 of C.P.C. is filed by appellant/plaintiffs

No.1 questioning legality and sustainability of the impugned judgment

and decree dated 17.01.2006, passed in Civil Appeal No.5-A/2004,

whereby, learned Additional District Judge, Baikunthpur, District-

Koriya (C.G.) arising out of the judgment and decree dated

23.10.2003, in Civil Suit No.6-A/1995, whereby learned Civil Judge

Class-1, Baikunthpur, District – Koriya dismissed the suit filed by the

plaintiffs.

4. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as per their

respective status before the trial Court.

5. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/plaintiffs

filed a civil suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against

the respondents/defendants with regard to the suit land and property

mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint. It was pleaded that the suit

property was originally held by one Arjun, he had two sons i.e. plaintiff

No.1 Jagmohan and Baban Ram. Widow of Baban Ram is defendant

No.1. Plaintiff No.

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top