B - -2-°^ Cr' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL N0. 3 / 2009 APPELLANT [Defendant V(o.l} ^ ^-s^^ 1 sv.n ^s»^w .A^ ^•••""' RESPONDENTS [Plaintiff[ Niranjan, S/o Raisingh, aged about 45 years, Caste-Goraiya, R/o Kaneri, P.O.-Kaneri, Tahsil- Gurur, District-Durg (C.G.) VERSU_S :1. Devna Bai, D/o Duliram, aged about 69 years, Caste-Goraiya, R/o Bhathgaon, Tahsil 85 District- Dhamtari (C.G.) iA^—-^2. ^;:^, ^SX'n;^1;' SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE -^r. ^-f •f''^ H1GH COURT OF /2% >UI ?sa! No.443 of 200! versus Devna.Bai and another Postfor 02.-02-2010 Prashant Kumar Mis Judge AT AssDeiiant Respondenl Niranja," versus Present: Shri Kunal Das, counsei for the appellant. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2. Second Appeal under Section 100 ofthe Code of Civll Procedun "'"'?. (Pas The second appea! has been preferred by defendant Mo.1 in the trial Court, which has dismissed the suit preferred by respondent Mo.l/plaintiff Devna Bai for declaration, permanent injunction and possession. On appeal by Devna Bai, the learned firs appel'ate Co.urt has allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. 2. The of the plaintlff, in short, is that the suit lands belonged to !ate Bhujba!, son of Samaru. Bhujbal's another brother was Duli. After death of both of them, Rajbati Bai, widow of. Bhujba!, succeeded to the property and thereafter the piaintiff, being the daughfer of late Dull, has succeeded to the property, howe'/er, after death of Rajbati Bai in 2000-2001, defendant No.1 Niranjan has !!!egal!y occupied the '^.... teuit'iands without fhere belng any right or title in hls favour. •ui, (^Z 2- 3. Defendant No.1 Niranjan contested the suit and stated that his name 'nas been recorded in the revenue records slnce 1 992 wlth ths consent of late Rajbati Bai. 11 was further stated that the partie; belonged to Gond Tribe, in which, daughters do not have a "ght over the property of their father and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief c'aimed !n the suit. 4. The learned tria! Court found that the statemerst of plaintiffs witnesses are not re!iab!e and that since name of defendant No.1 wa; recorded in the revenue records during lifetime of Rajbati Bai, widow of Bhujba!, in the year 1 992, it will be treated that Rajbati Bai had handed overthe propertyto defendant No.1. ~> The tearned first appellate Court, while reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 6-5-2008, in paragraph 6 of its judg.ment dated 30-10-2009, has recorded that it is not in dispute that resDondent No.l/Dlaintiff Devna Bai is the sole survivina member ofthe ujbai's family, being the daughfer of Bhujbal's brother Duli and that defendant No.1 Niranjan does not belong to the family of the deceased Bhujba! or Duli but he belongs to the parental famjiy of Rajbati Bai. 6. The tearned appellate Court, after having discussed the impact of Section 17 of the Registration' Act, 1908 concluded that since the property is valued at more than Rs.100/-, defendant No.1 Niranjan does not get any titie merely by entry of his name in the revenue "^ r©cord<s- 8vffln If ths snms c?im^ fo h^ r^^nrd^d wifh fhf5 concpnt nl --^coros, even IT ine same came 10 oe recoraea wim .ne conseni or 'Rajbatl Ba! in the absence of any valid and 'awfu! registered deed of ^^^•: 7^^iiF-A^^I .-^^ 8b@sj&. 's\ •^gggiB.^ ^ \-. ^ 3 o rouna tnai iijeaifi, ;^u. No.1 in the Gond Tribe, daughters ind in view ofthe said state of alienation. The appeiiate Court has has not proved by way of evidencs cannot inhsrit ths DroDfirtv ofthsir fathsr evidence, the appel'ate Court has held that the parties would be governed by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1 956. 7. !t is frite law that mere recording of name in the revenue records does not confer titie on the person whose name is recorded unless hs js able to dernonstrate that he has succeeded to the property by inheritance or by any registered deed of alienation. In the present case, none of the said t:m requlrements of law is present in favour of defendant No. 1, on the conSrary, it is pr.oved that the plaintiff is the daughter of Du!i, who was the brother of Bhujbal, the person 'A'ho owned the property at the beginning. 8. On perusa! of the entire records, this Court does not find that while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned tria! Court, the flrst appellate Court has committed any error of jurisdictlon or that the findings recorded are perverse. iaw arising for 9. • There being no substantia! question of 'determination in this appeai, the instant second fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission.'stage. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge 5^-^^-iSf^^^^i • ^.