Advocates:
['GP SONI', '', 'A S RAJPUT', 'RK TIWARI', '', 'A G', 'A K PRASAD']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Second Appeal No. 64 of 2005

1. Sundersai, S/o Shri Budu Singh Gond, Aged about 47 years,

2. Amarsai, S/o Shri Budu Singh, Aged about 44 years,

3. Kattar Singh, S/o Budu Singh, Aged about 41 years,

4. Budu Singh, S/o. Ram Singh, Aged about 70 years,

5. Jagsai, S/o Jirjodhan Gond, Aged about 55 years.

---- Appellants/Defendants

Versus

1.

Dev Kumar, S/o Late Heera Singh, Aged about 55 years, R/o Village

Dhawalpur, P.S. & Tahsil Manendragarh, Dist : Korea (C.G.)

2.

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Baikunthpur, Distt : Korea

(C.G.)

---- Respondents/Plaintiffs.

For Appellant /Defendants : Mr. A.S. Rajput, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ravi Mahobia, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Anjali Singh Chauhan, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Judgment On Board

13/08/2019

(1)

The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this

second appeal preferred by the defendants states as under:

“As to whether execution of sale deed dated 23-2-1988 by

Gorelal, D.W. No. 3 was proved in accordance with law

when Gorelal DW-3 himself has stated before the Court

that he has never sold the land under the alleged sale

deed dated 23-2-1988 ?

2

(For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred hereinafter as per their

status shown and ranking given in the suit before the trial Court).

(2)

Plaintiff - Dev Kumar filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession

and permanent injunction stating inter alia that he has purchased the suit land bearing

Khasra No. 291/1, area 3.395 hectare from Gorelal and Karan Sai by registered sale

deed dated 23.02.1988 (Ex.P-5) and came in possession thereof, and Assistant

Bandobast Adhikari mutated his name in the revenue records on 17.05.1990 vide Ex.

P-4, as such, he was in possession of the suit land but on 27.06.1992 defendants

dispossessed him from the suit premises leading to filing of the civil suit for the afore-

said reliefs. Though, the plaintiff had filed an application under Section 250 of the Land

Revenue Code for delivery of possession but was rejected by the revenue officer and

affirmed in appeal and revision also.

(3)

The defendants filed their written statement stating inter alia that they are suc-

cessor-in-interest of Gorelal and Karan Sai and they have never sold the suit property in

favour of plaintiff and, as such, the suit deserves to be dismissed and even otherwise,

Gorelal was not impleaded as a party defendant in the suit.

(4)

The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available

on record, decreed the suit holding that plaintiff has purchased the suit land by

registered sale deed dated 23.02.1988 (Ex.P-5) and became owner of the suit land and

he has been dispossessed forcefully by the defendants. The defendant preferred first

appeal there-against. The First appellate Court after re-appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence availalble on record, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the find-

ing so recorded by the trial Court, against which this second appeal under Section 100

of the CPC has been preferred by the appellants/defendants, in which, substantial

3

question of law has been formulated and set out in the opening paragraph of this judg-

ment.

(5)

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants would submit that

Gorelal was examined as DW-3, who has categorically denied the fact of alienation of

suit property in favour of plaintiff, as such, no title has been transferred in favour of the

plaintiff and both the courts below have erred in granting decree in favour of the plaintiff,

which is perverse and deserves to be set aside.

(6)

On the other hand, Shri Ravi Mahobia, counsel for respondent No. 1 would

support the judgment and decree impugned.

(7)

I have heard learned counsel appearing for