Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 19715

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J
Budhram – Appellant
Versus
Sukhmen – Respondent
SA No. 325 of 2018

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashok Kumar Shukla, Shivani Singh, Mamta Gendle
For the Respondents: S.A. Ansari, Kalpesh Ruparel

Daughters, including those belonging to tribal communities, are entitled to equal inheritance of ancestral property unless a contrary custom is strictly proven; procedural delays in substitution of legal representatives should be handled with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10 - Non-joinder of necessary parties - Application to array new parties at final stage of appeal - Rejected where no material foundation or pleading is provided to establish the ownership status of proposed parties. (Para 3)

(B) Hindu Succession - Tribal custom vs. General law - Right of daughters to inherit ancestral property - Even for tribal parties, in absence of established custom to the contrary, daughters are entitled to inherit ancestral property - Denial of such right violates Article 14 (Right to Equality). (Paras 17-18)

(C) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Courts should adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach for condoning delay to ensure substantial justice, particularly for tribal/rural litigants, provided the delay is not deliberate or the result of gross negligence. (Para 19)

(D) Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Scope of interference - Appellate court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or lack legal justification. (Para 21)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and possession over ancestral land. Defendants claimed exclusive ownership and reliance on a registered sale deed executed by one co-sharer. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court partly allowed it, declaring the sale deed null and void to the extent of the seller's share and directing the defendants to vacate the excess land.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that daughters are entitled to inherit ancestral property, and the sale deed covering land beyond the seller's specific share was correctly declared void. It further affirmed that condoning delay in bringing legal representatives on record is a matter of judicial discretion to serve substantial justice.

Issues: Whether the lower appellate court's declaration of the sale deed as void to the extent of excess area was perverse, and whether the inclusion of legal representatives during the appellate stage was procedurally defective.

Ratio Decidendi: Inheritance rights of daughters, even among tribal communities, are protected under the constitutional principle of equality. Procedural lapses in non-joinder or substitution of parties should not defeat substantial justice when facts demonstrate the rights of the parties are clearly affected.

Result: Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; decree of the First Appellate Court maintained.

Table of Content
1. rejection of application for adding new parties at the final appeal stage. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. procedural background and substantial questions of law in the second appeal. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. arguments regarding tribal succession customs vs. general law. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
4. daughters' right to inherit ancestral property regardless of tribal status. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
5. liberal application of section 5 limitation act for tribal litigants. (Para 19)
6. final order dismissing the appeal and vacating interim orders. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

CAV Judgment

1. Rangu (Died) Through Lrs S/o As Per Hon’ble Court Order Dated 26.07.2024

1.1 - Bihari Lal S/o. Late Rangu Rajwar Aged About 55 Years Occupation - Cultivator, R/o. Village - Odgi, Tahsil - Baikunthpur, District - Koriya (C.G.)

1.2 - Harinandan S/o. Late Rangu Rajwar Aged About 53 Years Occupation - Cultivator, R/o. Village - Odgi, Tahsil - Baikunthpur, District - Koriya (C.G.)

1.3 - Harilal S/o. Late Rangu Rajwar Aged About 50 Years Occupation - Cultivator, R/o. Village - Odgi, Tahsil - Baikunthpur, District - Koriya (C.G.)

1.4 - Laxmaniya W/o. Dubrajram, D/o. Late Rangu Rajwar Aged About 58 Years R/o. Village - Kenapara, P.S. And Tahsil - Baikunthpur, District - Koriya (C.G.)

2. Budhram S/o Shobhit Ram Rajwar Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Krishnapur Police Station And Tahsil Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ( Defendants ), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants(s)

versus

1. Sukhmen D/o Late Pusau Rajwar Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Amritpur Tahsil Baiakunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ( Plaintiff ), District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

2. Amrawati W/o Late Mohelal Aged About 25 Years Caste Rajwar , R/o Village Katgodi, Police Station And Tahsil Sonhat, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

3. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector , Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ( Defendants ), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

1. Heard on I.A. No.12 of 2025 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for arraying the following persons namely Lalit Kumar, Sunil Kumar and Piri Bai as respondent No. 4 to 6 alleging that they are the owner of the ancestral property which subject matter of the suit/appeal and they were never arrayed as party to the case filed by counsel for respondent No.1.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently objected the same and contended that in the application no material foundation is placed to demonstrate that they are owner of the ancestral property and in fact respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed the suit without arraying them as party to the case and when the appeal at the stage of final hearing the application has been filed to delay the proceeding and would pray for rejection of the application.

3. Considering the submissions of both the parties, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to array proposed respondent No. 4 to 6 is deserves to be rejected as the plaintiff while filing the suit has not made them party to the case, if they are necessary party it is for the plaintiff to make them party and due to nonjoinder of necessary party the suit is liable to be rejected. But since the appeal is at the final stage itself therefore, instead of dismissing the suit for want of necessary party, the appeal is decided on merit. Even the plaintiff has not pleaded as to how they are the owners of ancestral property. In absence of any pleading, relevant document only on the basis of balled statement the proposed respondents cannot make party to the case thus the interim application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is rejected.

4. This is defendant No.1 Second Appeal preferred under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2018 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge Surajpur in Civil Appeal No. 17-A/2011 arising out of judgment and decree dated 04.05.2010 passed by 2nd Civil Judge, Class-II, Surajpur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 19715

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURNarendra Kumar Vyas, JBudhram – AppellantVersusSukhmen – RespondentSA No. 325 of 2018

Daughters, including those belonging to tribal communities, are entitled to equal inheritance of ancestral property unless a contrary custom is strictly proven; procedural delays in substitution of legal representatives should be handled with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J
Budhram – Appellant
Versus
Sukhmen – Respondent
SA No. 325 of 2018