1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Second Appeal No. 195 of 2011

Nankibai, Aged about 71 years, W/o Late Nansay

Gond, R/o Village Kotaktal, Thana Patna, Tahsil

Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya, Chhattisgarh.

---Appellant/Plaintiff

Versus

1. Mahadeo, Aged about 82 years, S/o Late Dashrath

Gond, R/o Village Murma, And Kotaktal, Thana

Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya,

Chhattisgarh.

2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector,

District Koriya, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents/Defendants

For Appellant

:-

Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate

For Respondent 1 :- Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate

For State

:- Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Judgment on Board

22/01/2021

1.

This

second

appeal

preferred

by the

appellant/plaintiff was admitted for hearing on

the following substantial question of law :-

“Whether the lower appellate Court, even

upon upholding the validity of registered

deed of sale dated 23.5.1977 (Exhibit P/5)

2

executed by Jagbandhan in plaintiff's

favour, was justified in dismissing the

plaintiff's claim by holding that suit as

framed without seeking the relief of

possession is not maintainable ?”

[The parties will hereinafter be referred to as

per their status and ranking shown before the

trial Court.]

2.

Plaintiff and respondent No. 1 are real brother

and sister. The suit property was originally

owned by one Jagbandhan.

3. Plaintiff/sister brought a suit against her

brother/defendant No. 1 for declaration of title

and permanent injunction stating inter alia that

she was married with one Nansai, who died within

one and half years of their marriage and after

his death, she has been residing at her parental

house. After the death of Nansai, from the money

that plaintiff received, she purchased the suit

property from Jagbandhan vide registered sale

deed dated 23/05/1977 (Ex. P/5) and thereby came

into possession of the said suit property, but

in the revenue records, the suit property was

registered in the name of defendant No. 1 for

which she applied for mutation but it was

rejected and on being threatened by defendant

3

No. 1 to be forcibly dispossessed from the suit

property, the necessity for filing the suit

arose claiming the relief of declaration of

title and permanent injunction.

4. Resisting the suit, defendant No. 1 filed his

written statement stating that prior to the sale

of the suit property made in favour of the

plaintiff, Jagbandhan had sold the suit property

in his favour by agreement dated 11/06/1974 and

since then, he has been in possession of the

suit property and his name has also been

recorded in the revenue records, as such, he has

also perfected his title over the suit property

by way of adverse possession.

5. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral

and documentary evidence on record, decreed the

suit vide its judgment and decree dated

31/10/2007 holding that plaintiff is the title-

holder of the suit property on the basis of the

sale deed (Ex. P/5) executed by Jagbandhan in

her favour and defendant No. 1 has failed to

prove the agreement dated 11/06/1974 allegedly

executed by Jagbandhan in his favour. Learned

trial Court further recorded a finding that

plaintiff is in possession of the suit property

4

and accordingly, granted decree for declaration

of title and permanent injunction in her favour.

6. On appeal being preferred by defendant No. 1

against the judgment and decree passed by the

trial Court, learned first appellate Court,

though affirmed the finding of the trial Court

qua title of the plaintiff over the suit

property on the basis of the sale deed (Ex. P/5)

and further held that defendant has not

perfected his title over the suit property by

way of adverse possession, yet interfered with

the judgment and decree passed by the trial

Court by holding