IN THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATURE AT BILASPUR FC.G.1 SECOND APPEAL N0^ •z2005 i5Sgii|S®W APPELLANTS PLAINTIFFS ^<^.^ <€</ >.»' ^ ^?^ ?>•• ^ 1] Bahoran Sharma Son of late ^ Tulsiram Sharma, aged 55 years, 2J Bhupal Sharma S/o late Tulsiram Sharma, aged about 47 years. 3] Sheetalesh Sharma son of Bhaskar Sharma, aged 23 years, 4].- Heeramani Sharma son of late ^ Tulsiram Sharma, aged 33 years. 5] Smt. Nandkunvar Sharma, ^ widow of late Tulsiram Sharma, aged 75 years. No. 1 to 5 residents of village Parsada, Tahsil and District Bilaspur [C.G.]. 6]. Smt. Revati Bai W/o Chhannu D/o late Tulsiram Sharma, aged 57 years,R/o Majhgaon Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur [C.G.]. 7.] Smt. Bhanu Bai Widow of late Sitaram Sharma D/o late Tulsiram Sharma, aged 53 years, R/o Chantidih, Bilaspur [C.G.]. 8] Ram Sharan Sharma aged 43 --''" years, S/o Late Dambhoj Sharma. 9] Jageshwar Prasad Sharma, aged 28 years, S/o late Dambhoj Sharma. 10] Smt. Chitrekha -Bai aged 62 years, widow of late Dambhoj Sharma. Nos. 8 to 10 R/o village Parsada, Tahsil and Distri.et Bilaspur [C.G.]. IUgg taii'a^Bai!i;Vyas|%ij3|jiwgi||latej irS^dSfsWaSW^ ^E)|rr-jJ3:^(3jg;|>|ai-ffiia^K|^Unllia :^iNsiKi^3|a;;SS|;i|1'aiKstl3^|l3ai-H|^tlij,| DisfrictJEinjgir-ChamRa^ [£.©.] 12]; Smt. MeeFabai ; Pancle^! IW/o :';fSaji'iat^Kii.i(rr)ai-"l:;lan||ey%D/'C)|ISt;g^ ,^:ft©ai[mb:Hoj:'^.f't^®^aEi^ai^^iS,l^& ^,-;l^a:h^i'ania,Pl-ata'p!;Na^aiF,i^ilTa,' •Bilaspi.ir[C;.G.].,:: :^':::..^',?>|:\" 13] Smt. JMeera Vyas>W/Oi@i«/akar ;',^,^WYas,^eyy36.;^eai's^ll3|(ouj|l|a|te| ^Darnbtio|.|^Jiai'ma|j^R/<iJJBaJj:o^ .•..•'•:N:^gcir;,^:;Kc(Fba;''r©jStri<£t:lKorBa^ ,.[C:G.3:.'.(.l:::l...y.',;:::.^^;^ Ran-ik.hilawan .^Sl^arma^.'^ged; ^'•:l:'yearS,l!.:;;,^S/<:i'':'''RU|^i^ :gh8rrrm.;,^':''i'.<::-^::;;'.ls'::" 11'''' :^ iX 18] [i;3iB;K^S|-iatn.itiai^a'gedi:S2Syea^,;?S/o' .PyrahjarSWaii'iFha.'l"'.?:;:"! ^ :•";. Narehara iSt-iarrtta/ agedi 39 years,S/o'Piurarijai Sti|ai-ma.,j ii; ,Heynath;^'iS,hSrmai;^aged^^;Z7i :years,^';.i;S/o:'"late^; Pui'an]al. ^Sharma. ', 1:-. :/:: :. : .r' Smfc Lalmati Sharma agfid j&2: years,, widOw of~ late 'F>ura:njai; 'Sharma:.^.,:'!^',-f.''';:.:::^'^-.: •-,;;.:;" i;; No. 14 to 18 all rgsident jcif? village Rarsada, Tatisil iand' District Bilaspur [G.G.]. il- m 1 i^^ SmE. Chanda Bai agSd s48? years, widQw of^latesArii.inialid D/p tate Rul-anjai Shai"ma. ^ '^ ZtM" Smt. Nirmala Bai wife is6f Ashok Kumar^ D^ PuraiTjai Stiarma. Late Nos.l&ancl20jbetKii-esiGlents cf ^v^Qe^Wl^^aw'BiSWisK Jan]gil--ChgnpiRa.'[C:.©^.:l?::iw^.;l.j:^it ST •^^jgi-^.^Mi.it^nai'yBajw.lagliSilggjQ ^1j(eags,^wiid!®w;?:,';ol::;J!|ai||!iHga3{B'ii %Pi-sigaffii::*; »1 |SM|a]j;n|ian^s)3FasadS;%E8S®JVyaS; iNagart!iBi§t!ni£:t^aiTjgi'i--®ltaEK|)Sj :®I.J'.-;-^1-?:':':::;:''^^H 'f'? ji: wS Q. 'SSSR': 11-': i%ilt! ^ill^: ^^^'^S'^sfgtS^sS^SiSS^^SSfs.^'S 'SSiSS&'S^^^S^ifi^SM ?:^^^^S^^i^^^^^^ 'f!:'^^•^: ••::;''^J':::-:il:''Z'l'^''':'-::;^..'-'''';'^;^^'^^^^;^:l<.^:'-^^^ RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS 2%1 Smt. Umeda Baj aged 64 years, Widow of Nirbhai Prasad D/o Surajman Prasad R/o village Karesara, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur [CG] VERSUS u' y Smt. Khorbaharin Bai, aged 65 years, Widow of late Bhuneshwar Prasad R/o village Parsada, at present R/o Mungeli, Padavpara, District Bilaspur [C.G.]. State Through- [C.G.]. of Chhattisgarh, Collector, Bilaspur SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE1908 w. B HIGH COURT OP CHHATHSGARH. BttASPXni SECtMtD APPEAL Mo. SSO/2005 Bahoran Shanna and others Vs. Smt Khorbaharin Bai aaid another Aiiperance : Shri A.Kzunar, couasel for flie appeBants. ORAI, ORDBR 1 (10.7.2006) Snnll Kmnar SInha. J. (1) This appeal is dirccted against fhe judgmeat aiid dcciTee dated 3.9.2005, ^ssed in Cnril Appcal No. 4-A/2004 by &e Additional Distnct Judge, Bflaspur arising out of fhe judgmeut and decrec dated 29.12.2003, passed in Civffl Suit No. 47-A/2002 by tihe 7& Civil Judgp Class-II, Bflaspur. The plaaitiflfa, who are the appcDants herem, tost in bofh the Courts. (2) The plamtiffa fited a suit for declaratfon fhat fhc suit lands be declared the lands ofjoint owiiership of fhc plaiatiGFs onty and fhe defendaat No.l be restramed finm dieitating the aforesaid properly and she be further restoained fix>m iaterfering with ttie joint possession of the plaintiflfe in tte said pToperty. Tbe plaint aBegatfons are that the suit properties weie acquired by one Surajmaa I'rasad. Surqinaa Prasad died and fhe plnmtiflfe are his successors. Defendant No. 1 is fhe wife of one of the sons of Suraginan Pcasad nam.efy-BhunesIiwar I*rasad. It is specificalfy pteaded vide para 4 of the plaint that prior to his deafh Bhimeshwar Piasad stated fhat dcfciidant No. 1 wiB oaty have a right of inainteuance in thcse properties aad she wffl aot be ^— entifled to get any share in the samc. Their <»ntention•was that fhis statement, oreSy nnale by Bh.uiieshwar Prasad, was a Wfll of Bhuneshwar Piasad and accorduag to that defeadaat No. l wiB gct ito absolute right or succcssoiy right in the sute piqpcrties and she wiB onfy get a right ofmaintenance in (he saine. (3) The trial Court flained various issucs in fhfa case and afler recording evidence of fhc parties, disinisscd fhc suit of the plaiatiflfe, hoMing fhat accordmg to tfae Hmdu Succession Act, 1956, dcfendaat No. 1 wiU have a righ.t ofpartitfon in fhe aforesaid property. It was also held fhat fhcre caam»tbe an oral WiB, as pleaded by the plamtifFa and the said pleadings pertaming to fhe aUeged oral WiB by Bhuaeshwar Prasad was rejected. A^iast tbs afoEesaid judgment and decree, passed by fhe trial Coiu-t, the plaintifife fited an ^>peal before fhc tower appcUate courL The towcr appeVate court ateo took thc siaular view aiid dismis^xl fhe appcal, coitfiruung fhe judgpient aad decree pEussed by tfae trial Court. It is agaiust fhis judgment and decree passed by fhe tower appellate court, fhc plaintiffa have fited fhis Secoxid AppeaL (4) Lcaraed counsel for fhe appeUants aigues that in the normal course of succession, as per fhc proivisions of Hmdu Succession Act, 1956, dcfendant No. 1 wiB get a ri^it in flie suit pioperties being fhe widow of son of fhe origlnal hoMcr itainety- Bhuneshwar Piasad. His si&aSsion is that the Courte betow, whfle rejectmg ffaie aintetitioa of fh6 plam.tife fhat (hfi suit propcrties were fhe pioperties ofjoiut owncrship afld pesse^ion of fhe plaintifife, stould have passed a dectee m their favour, ascertaming fheir i^rts and saying that defeiidant No.l K also fhe joiat owner and fhe suit ofthc plaintiffa shoiiM aot have bcen disinissed. (5) This contentmn raised by leamcd. coun^l for the appeDaats catmot be accepted. When fhe plaintififa had pleaded and asscrted thcir absohite right in the siut properties, cxcluding (h.e righ.t of ^ sunita defeadaat No.l oa aocount of thc so caBed oral WiU of Bhuaeshwar Ftasad piusband ofdefendant No. 1) then the Courts betow, while rejectu^ fhe ptea of oral WiU, have righfty taken ttris view that the suit was Uabte to be disinissed for fhc relieves clauaed by fhc plmntiffs. tu fact, it was thc suit based upon the contentions and the pteadings ofso calted WiU and iffhe siutfiuls on that count, it was liable to bc dismissed onfy. (6) Moreover, fhe Courts betow have not ascertained shaEes m fhe suit properties and it is ooSy ssad fhat dcfendaat No. l is entifled to aflEect partttun to (he esctent of the share of her husbaad- Bheneshwar Prasad. (7) There is no mfinmily in the findiagp recotded by the two Courts betow. No substantial questton of ]aw is involved in fhis appeaL The appeal has no merit Tfac sacae is dfemissed at fhe inotfon stage itself. f -~~~ ~ — _^ 1 SdA Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge