2025:CGHC:4701 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Reserved on : 04.11.2024 Delivered on : 27.01.2025 SA No. 131 of 2012

1. Kheek Bai @Rambai D/o Amrutlal, R/o Village Jhulakdam, Ward No. 11, Police Station and Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

... Appellant versus

1. Amrutlal S/o late Gopichand Sahu, R/o Village Kalmi, PS and Tahsil Malkharauda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

2. Ramsagar S/o Amrutlal, R/o Village Kalmi, PS and Tahsil Malkharauda, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, District Janjgir-

Champa.

---- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Udho Ram Koshaley, Advocate For Res. No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas C.A.V. JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter

KISHORE KUMAR

DESHMUKH

Date: 2025.01.28

the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2011 passed by the

learned Additional District Judge, Sakti District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.49-A/2010, whereby the first appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/ defendants and set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Malkharauda, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 16-A/09 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed in her favour.

2. The parties to this appeal shall be referred to hereinafter as per their description in the civil suit.

3. This appeal was admitted by this Court on 05.02.2013 on the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, which decreed the plaintiff’s suit for declaration of plaintiff’s share in the suit property and also for partition and possession in respect of her share?

(ii) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the plaintiff’s suit by holding that since other co- sharers were not made the parties, therefore, the suit was dismissed for want of necessary parties ?

(iii) Whether on the facts found, the First Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit by allowing the defendant’

appeal?

4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that A. Plaintiff filed a suit for partition, declaration of title and possession of her share over land as described in Schedule "A" and Schedule "B" attached with the plaint situated at village – Kalmi, Tahsil – Malkharauda, District – Janjgir- Champa (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’) contending that she and defendant No.-2 are brother and sister and defendant No.-1 Amrutlal is their father, they are Hindus of Sahu (Teli) caste and are governed by Mitakshara branch of Hindu law. Defendant No.-1 Amrutlal has five daughters and one son, namely Khikbai alias Rambai (plaintiff), Khirbai, Kapoorbai, Ramsagar (defendant No.-2), Ramkumari and Rameshwari respectively. The suit property mentioned in Schedule 'A' is ancestral property having registration in the name of plaintiff's father Amrutlal (defendant No.-1). The land described in Schedule 'B' is registered in the name of plaintiff's brother Ramsagar (defendant no.-2), which was purchased from time to time from the nucleus of ancestral property. As such, both the suit property described in Schedule 'A' and Schedule "B" are the ancestral property of the plaintiff and the defendants.

B. When the plaintiff demanded partition of the suit land from defendants No. 1 and 2 in December 2007, they assured the plaintiff that they would divide her share of the suit land and give it to her, but they did not divide the share. When the plaintiff again demanded partition of the suit land in May 2008, the defendants refused to give her share which has necessitated the plaintiff to file a suit claiming 1/7^th share of the suit property. Her sisters have not claimed partition for suit p