v^ -f"A l^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(C.G. ) %-il1?^l ^H^s^ SBCOND APPEAL NO. .3^ APPELLMiTS DBFENDANTS OF 2007 : l^ Bhagwan singh»aged about 12 years son of phagu singh(Minor)through his natural Guardian Father pBaga singh Thakur<iresident of Village-Mauha Madwa.Tehsil- Mungeli.Distrlct-Bilaspur(C.G«) ^K^ Mohan Lal son of Bachhu Lal Kalar aged about 42 years^ Motiram son of Bachhu Lal Kalari aged about 37 yearse Ram BJLhari son of Bachhu Lal Kalar »aged about 34 years^ Respondent NOo 2 to 4 re&ident of Ramhepur»Tehsil-Lormi»District Bilaspur(C»G<») ^ Guhi Ram aged about 47 years son of Mautu Ram Rawate 3. 4o ^" ^ Dasru aged about 42 years»son of Mainu Ram Yadav. Respoadents No. 5 & 6 regident of Ramhepur.Tehsil-Lormi. District-Bilaspur •(C«G«) VE RS U S RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFFS ^-/ Srnt^ Mongra Bai aged about 48 years»wlfe of Baldau singh Rajput Thakur,resident of Lalkapa»Tehsil->Mungeli,District-k Bilaspur,(C.G,) 2*y state of Chhattisgarb^tfaroagfo Collector^Bilaspar^ Dlstrlct-Bilaspur(C.G,) •^ fc t 2s SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURB. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kwnar Mishra Second Appeal No. 39/2007 Bhag^ran Singh and others Versus Smt Mongi'a Bai and another JUDGMENT Postfor 14-07-2011 Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge (-3-07-2011 ^.^: ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: HonLble^hriPrashantKumar^^^^^ Second Appeal No. 39/2007 APPELLANTS : Bhagwan Singh and others Versus RESPONDENTS : Smt. Mpngi-a Bai and another Appearance; Shri Awadh Tripathi, counsel for the appellants. Shri Devesh Kela, counsel fdr respondentNo.l. Miss. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel La^yer for the State. SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE QFCniLPRQaEDURE JUDGMENT (14.07.2Q11) This second appeal has been preferred by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, whereby, the first appellate court while reversing the judgment and decree passed by tlie trial court, has partly decreed the plamtiffs suit. (2) Plaintiff Mongra Bai preterred the suit for possession aiid permanent injunction on the pleadings that lands admeasuring 20.33 acres described in Schedule A with the plaint was sold to her by Indrakunwar Bai on 11/05/1982 afier receiving the entire amount of considemtion and possession was also handed over. The said Indrakimvvar Bai had earlier filed a suit challenging the sale-deed which vvas dismissed, however the said Indmkunwar Bai has sold ,the property to other defendants which is illegal, because' after selling the property to tlie plaintiffshe had no title on the suit land. flr (3) According to the defendants, mcluding Indrakunwar Bai, no sale-deed was executed in favour ofplaintiffand since Indrakunwar Bai was issue less she had adopted Bhagwan Singh and the lands has been entered in his name. It vvas also pleaded that plaintiffs husbaiid Baldau Singh was attorney holder of Indrata-inwar Bai who has got executed the sale-deed in favour of plalntiff by fraudulent means. (4) The trial court dismissed the suit after finding that the execution of sale-deed in favour plaintiff Mongra Bai and consequent deliveiy of possession has not been proved and thus the plaintiffis not entitled to the decree as prayed for. (5) The appellate court has reversed the finding recorded by the trial court on material issues. The appellate court has found that the defendants plea that tliey have entered into an agreement with Indrakunvvar Bai in 1980 for purchase of the suit land and consequent delivety of possession has not been proved for want of any documentaty evidence. It has also been foimd that plea of Indrakunwar Bai that she has adopted Bhagwan Singh has not been proved because in the school records name of father of Bhagwan Singh has been recorded as Fagu Singh, whereas name of Indrakunwar's husband is Ram Singh. Fagu Singh himself has feigned ignor^nce that Iiidrakiinwar had ever adopted Bhagwan Singh. There is no docunient available in the record alienating or transferring any part ofthe suit land in favour ofBhagwan Singh in lA\ -3- ¥ fV 1982. After considering statement ofPW-2 Sahukar Sharma who is the attestmg witness of the sale deed dated 11/05/1982 (Ex. P-1) executed by Indrakunwar Bai in favour of plaintiff Mongra Bai, the appellate court has found that the sale-deed was in fact executed for valuable consideration bv Indrakunwar Bai and that the sale-deed is not fraudulent or sham tmnsaction. (6) Thus, the appellate court found the plaintifls case to be proved except for kliasra No. 189/3 which was not included in the sale-deed and in fact plaintiffhas purchased kliasra no. 179/3 along with other khasra numbers. (7) This court has gone through the record and has considered the argument advanced by leamed couiisel for the appellant. Learned counsel has argued that the sale-deeds could not have been set aside because there was no prayer to this effect. The first appellate court has tbund that the suit was filed in May 1994 and the sale-deeds have been executed in favour of other defendants during pendency ofthe suit and are thus hit by principles of lis pendens and the same has no effect in law to pass title on the purchasers. In the opinion of this court, the finding given and the reasoning assigned by the first appellate court is in accordance vvith law. It is to be seen that firstly Indrakunwar Bai had no valid title to dispose of the suit land after executing the ,sale"deed in favour ofthe plaintiffon 11/05/1982 and that any alienation made during pendency of the present.suit was /"^urely hit by the principles oflis pendens. r 'i ^^. (8) Learned counsel has also argued that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land, therefore decree for possession could not have been granted, in other words, learned counsel has tried to argue that the suit is barred by limitation. To deal with this argument it is to be seen that the sale-deed was executed on 11/05/1982 aiid the suit has been filed on 7/05/1994 i.e.wittiin 12 years fi'om the date of execution of the sale-deed. Plaintiffs possession has been recorded in the revenue records i.e. record of right in form B-l (Ex.P-2) ofthe year 1983-84 and the maintenaiice khasra ofthe year 1983-1984 and 1984-1985 (Ex. P-3). Similar is the revenue entries in Ex.P-4. Paa5 and P"6. In view ofthese revenue entries it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the first appellate court that possession was delivered to the plainliff after execution ofthe sale-deed, is perverse in any manner. The second argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants also fails. (9) No substantial question of law arises for dletermination in this appeal which fails and is hereby dismissed. ^ ^ Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge v-