The court established that a registered sale deed is valid despite claims of joint family ownership, and defendants failed to prove adverse possession, which was deemed permissive.

J U D G M E N T

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1. The legal representatives of original defendant Signature Not Verified Digitaly signed by VARSHA MENDIRATTA Date: 2024.10.14 Reason:

defendant No. 2 in Civil Suit No.195A/95, are in appeal against the judgment dated 11.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Second Appeal No.401/2003, reversing the concurrent judgments of the Courts below and the consequently, drawn decree dated 25.07.2014.

2. The facts, in succinct, that led to the impugned judgment and decree are as follows:-

“Respondent No.1 herein viz., Rajendra Kumar Gupta filed Civil Suit No.195A/95 (evidently, renumbered) admittedly on 24.12.1986, against the original defendants, namely, Ashok Kumar Gupta and Rakesh Kumar Gupta for recovery of possession of suit schedule property based on title besides claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 10,500/- and future damages at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per acre and for costs. It was averred that he purchased the suit schedule property admeasuring 7.60 acres comprised in Khasra No.867/1 of Mowa village in Tehsil and District Raipur, as per registered sale deed dated 04.06.1968 from one Late Sh. Sitaram Gupta, who was the common cousin of himself and the original defendants. Furthermore, he averred that since its registration he had been enjoying peaceful possession of the suit schedule property under Bhumiswami Rights till he was dispossessed by the original defendants in the month of July, 1983.”

3. The original defendants jointly filed a written statement on 04.04.1990 contending that their father, Sh. Ramesh Chandra Gupta, and father of the plaintiff, Sh. Kailash Chandra Gupta, purchased the suit schedule property in the name of their nephew Late Sh. Sitaram Gupta, on 15.03.1963. They further contended that Ramesh Chandra Gupta and Kailash Chandra Gupta had also purchased another land admeasuring 5 acres comprised in Khasra No.924 of the same village. It was also contended by them that their father had installed electric pump and dug well besides constructing three rooms in the suit schedule property for dairy purpose. They averred, rather admitted, that upon the death of plaintiff’s father on 25.12.1967, the suit schedule property was transferred in the name of the plaintiff in the year 1968 and his name was recorded in the revenue records, albeit claimed that its possession still remained with them. They went on to contend that Ramesh Chandra Gupta and Kailash Chandra Gupta were members of joint family and they had joint business of bangles in Firozabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh and that in the year 1952 they started the business of bangles in Raipur by opening a shop in the name and style ‘Laxmi Bangles Store’. According to them, in the year 1973 their father had opened another shop of bangles at Dhamtari and on 31.03.1976 an oral partition had taken place between their father viz., the original defendant No.1 and plaintiff’s family whereunder land in Khasra No.924 admeasuring 5 acres and the bangle shop at Dhamtari were given to the plaintiff and his family and the suit schedule property and the bangle shop at Raipur were allotted to the share of defendant’s family. They had also contended that till the aforementioned partition effected on 31.03.1976, the plaintiff was a member of the Joint Hindu Family. In their joint written statement, they had also taken up the pleas of adverse possession and limitation, as special objections on the ground of being in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 12 years.

4. Based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court had framed 11 issues as hereunder:-

“1. Did the Plaintiff by purchasing the suit land through registered sale deed dated 04/06/1968 get the possession of the suit land?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is Bhumiswami of the suit land?

3. Did the father of the Defendants purchased the suit land in the name of his nephew in 1963 and 1967, since then the Defendants are in possession of the suit land?

4. Whether the Defend