Judgment on Board

13.03.2026

1. The defendant/ appellant has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity CPC) against the judgment & decree dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Dantewada, Dist South Bastar in Civil Appeal No. 07- A/2023 (Parameshwar Vishwakarma Vs. Nirmala Sharma & Ors.) affirming the judgment and decree dated 08.11.2024 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 02-A/16 (Nirmala Vs. Patameshwar & Ors.) whereby the learned trial Judge has partly allowed the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

2. The plaintiff preferred the suit for declaration, permanent injunction and partition pleading inter alia that the suit property originally belonged to Late Munghar Vishwakarma (father of the plaintiff) and the same was his self-acquired property. It is pleaded that after the death of Munghar Vishwakarma and his wife Smt. Shanti Devi Vishwakarma, the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 remained in possession of the suit property and were using and enjoying the same in equal shares since the lifetime of Munghar Vishwakarma. It is further pleaded that Munghar Vishwakarma was residing with the plaintiff during his lifetime and had handed over the original patta of the suit land to her. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of the northern portion of the suit property where she has constructed a double-shutter shop and a residential house consisting of three rooms with a tube-well installed therein and is carrying on a grocery business, whereas defendant No. 1 is in possession of the southern portion where he has constructed a single-shutter shop and four rooms and is also carrying on a grocery business. It is further averred in the plaint that disputes and business rivalry exist between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and proceedings in respect of the suit land were also initiated before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dantewada under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 1, on the false pretext that the original patta had been lost, moved an application before the Sub- Divisional Officer for issuance of a duplicate patta and by misrepresenting himself as the sole legal heir of Late Munghar Vishwakarma and in collusion with the revenue authorities, managed to obtain a duplicate patta in his name and in the name of his wife (defendant No. 7), which according to the plaintiff is illegal and liable to be cancelled. On the aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiff instituted the suit. The cause of action is stated to have arisen after the death of Munghar Vishwakarma on 28.08.2014 and also on account of the subsequent proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the continuing dispute between the parties regarding the suit property.

3. Defendants No. 1, 3 and 5 filed a joint written statement and, while admitting the admitted facts, denied the averments made in the plaint paragraph-wise. Their principal contention is that defendant No. 1 is the exclusive owner of the suit land and no other person has any legal right over the same. It is further pleaded that in Revenue Case No. 291/4-121/2014– 15, by order dated 19.02.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dantewada, the original forest rights patta issued in favour of Munghar Vishwakarma has been cancelled and a patta has been issued in favour of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 7. On the said grounds, dismissal of the suit has been prayed for. Defendant No. 7 has also filed a separate written statement reiterating the same averments as made by defendants No. 1, 3 and 5 and has likewise prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Defendant No. 6 filed a written statement and, except for the admitted facts, denied the averments made in the plaint paragraph-wise. It is mainly contended that although the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are in pos