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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 15917

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BEDRAM – Appellant
Versus
BISANI – Respondent
SA/318/2018



##PAGE1##

SOURABH DsSPi AOigg TnUi EteRad Ll A by ByH

PATEL D21+05a 02:t 51e6 35:. 00:559.15

1

2026:CGHC:22634

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

SA No. 318 of 2018

1 - Bedram Firanta, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Dundera,

Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Narayan, Firanta, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Dundera,

Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

3 - Tilak Firanta, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Dundera, Tahsil

And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellants/Plaintiffs

versus

1 - Bisani Firanta, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Urla, Durg,

Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Savitri, Firanta, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Bori, District

Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

3 - Narayani, Firanta, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Chunkatta,

Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

4 - Ferhi, Kheduram, Aged About 60 Years R/o M. Jamgaon, District

Durg, Chhattisgarh.

5 - Thagiya, Kheduram, Aged About 55 Years R/o Santoshi Para,

Supela Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

6 - Firan, Kheduram, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Nandai

Chowk, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon,

Chhattisgarh.

7 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Collector, Durg, Tahsil

And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents/Defendants

For Appellant : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Advocate.

For State/Respondent : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy.G.A.

No. 7

##PAGE2##

2

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Order on Board

13.05.2026

1. Heard on admission.

2. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') has been filed by the

appellants, assailing the legality, correctness and validity of the

judgment and decree dated 28.03.2018 passed by the 3rd

Additional District Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 11-

A/2013, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants under

Section 96 of the CPC was dismissed and the judgment and

decree dated 13.12.2012 passed by the 2nd Additional Civil

Judge, Class-I, Durg (C.G.) (for short, 'Trial Court') in Civil Suit

No. 149-A/2012 was affirmed. The parties are referred to as per

their status before the learned Trial Court.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiffs filed a civil

suit in respect of the suit property comprising Khasra Nos.

1057, 1076 and 1078, admeasuring 0.54, 0.68 and 0.31

hectares respectively, i.e., total area 1.53 hectares, situated at

Village Dundera, P.H. No. 30, R.I. Mandal Anda, Tahsil and

District Durg (C.G.). The suit was filed for partition, declaration

of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property.

4. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are real siblings, and

defendant Nos. 4 to 6 are the step sister of father of the

plaintiffs. As per the further pleadings of the plaintiffs,

defendant Nos. 4 to 6 were married during the lifetime of the

plaintiffs' grandfather and are residing in their matrimonial

##PAGE3##

3

homes. After the death of their father, Khedu Ram, defendant

Nos. 4 to 6 never claimed any right over the suit property, and

thus the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property. It is the

further case of the plaintiffs that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were

married during the lifetime of their father and they have never

claimed any share in the suit property. The father of the

plaintiffs died in the year 1988. The plaintiffs and defendant

Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled to receive their respective shares

according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is further

pleaded that after the death of their father, defendant Nos. 4 to

6 made an application before the Court of Tahsildar for partition

and got the suit property partitioned in their favour in the year

2009 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the

plaintiffs, which is illegal. It is further pleaded that defendant

Nos. 4 to 6 are not entitled to any share by partition and that

defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have relinquished their share in the suit

property; despite that, the plaintiffs are ready to give defendant

Nos. 1 to 3 their proper share.

5. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, a prayer for

par

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