<t Q) IN THE HI6H COURT OF JU&ICATURE AT BIL^SPUR. CHH^TTESSARH Ip Miscelianeoys_AppeaLJsio, ^^_af 2004 APPELLANT/; /(Defendant No.l) 6ESPON&ENTS/: 'fPbintiffs) ^A ^y^ ^••^ ^: ^ (Defendants) ^^ C 'fc w ^/geer Singh, S/o Umedram, Aged about 19 years, R/o Village: Khargaon, Tehsil: Kharsia, District: Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. - Versus - A. Pratap Singh, S/o Kushal Singh, ^. Aged about 60 years. 2.; Tcilctm Singh, S/o Kushai Singh /' Sidar, Aged about 47 years. Both residents of Village: Khargaon, Tehsil: Kharsia, District; Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Smt. Brindabai, Widow of Kusha! Singh, Aged about 80 years. Bhagwat Singh, - S/o Bhutneshwar, Aged about 40 years. 5. 6. . •• .Darbar Singh, S/o Bhutneshwar Singh, Aged about 35 years. Dadu Singh, S/o Bhutneshwar Singh, Aged about 38 years. .-s • • • .. Sukmetbai, Widow of Bhutneshwar Singh, Aged about 70 years. Respondents No.3 to 7 all residentsof Vilbge: Khargaon, Tehsil: Kharsia, District: Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Collector, District: Raigaph, Chhattisgarh. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER OR&ER 43 (1) fr5 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE '•<fSGS. XI-HG—78 'Svf '•WW^,'',SFS['W ,:Psitvtlfiy, ^... ./^'^.-•?.%&^(?'fe:;: StKW1?^? sn^iqit^ ^w sn^? sii*i ^^;02.2005:- SMri Sanjay K-Agrawal, Shri Amit Sharma, learned leartied This is the misceilaneous C.P.C. praferred against the trial Court. : ; - .oounselfortheappellants. ciounset for Caveators/responderitsl & 2. atapeal under Qrder 43 Rule (1) (r) of the pf ten'iporary^injunction passed by the ordfrr The parties hereinafter sh; beforethetrialCourt. - ' exeduted The .suit for deelaration alhd ^plaintifRi; as ^tha sal&^leecl ;-ii6fenj(:farit^fy!os^.;iS|n(iitilbmdirtysoFi|| ahyAJt!e^0ifEle'gtire8jasieN|iya:lefen^ani wer® lind lahd The case ofthe Sirigh any ;Bhuwn®5hwar.Singh lanct and^after .Wejr death, the successors. However,.tHewidow! her nams mutated over the suit not succeed in their community maintenance" only. It was further recording of the name of defendajit had good relationship and defend^nt suit property^ On the instigation ojf defendant No.2 applied for partg i^uu^t; ' /^ ,- —i iiu 'i-Mciyciiu—TG\ wigfei;!J i[mgi ^Ss'S 'iFai't^K • ^F.nfiiit;-CT^i^^'';, ! 'l be described as they were described |hd terhporary injunction was filed the by defenclant-Nio; 2 •in favpur of |li$|R^intiffs arid;tRus,?(:lQes|Fiotftransfcr E^g s.»:.<-^%''?^.^yM.'.^ leforft.tlie trialSourt^is^tliat^lateKushal is{he.^owherS^.Qt;32i:i804:£|3eGt&ressOf. was recorded in^th^ name of their !Qf Kushat Singh i.s. defendant No. 2 got I. Though the widows by their cast do ^nd they are entitled for livelihood ahd tileaded that ttie ptairitiffs did not object No. 2 in the revenue recordsas they : Np.1 was never in ppssession of the defendant No. 1 onatiout 01.06.2003, tion of the suit land as described in 't nsDcidt, Kn2r3.sty3 VIQG orcisr 03.1 ;XKHC—78 ' 3II^T^il;!<rii'<" ~QyW 37T^T Sti*11<t> wqyit Wffinttt ^:EET'-^i'yM<':f,'imi}'a.ii<°s%'?"Mli< —^•M.ii.g.'^^....:.. •sn^T.'^gT'fiqI^?^) tSrere'aftCT 3i^?i — ^-— Kharasiya which was disnmssed-vi ,<tiWbf<fl-l H|i-lfB'lEfT%<^''-i[flt<;jt IJi'3T!a7T3h^T':'-?^ . 08.08.2003 allQtteddisputedlan^lof 2.247 ^hectargsin"tbeshareof defendant No.2 against which th^y preferred.an ^ppeal before S/D.O., deorderdated 29.09.2003. Duringthe pendency.of the appeal before t)ie S.D.O., Kharasiya^vide sale deed dated 30.09.2003,; the suitland\(/as transferredbydefendahtNo. 2'in 'favour of defendant No. 1 for & clsnsideration of Rs. 1,55,000/-. It was ftirther sybmjtted 4hat the plaintif^ property since the time oftheir an even after execution of the transl plaintiff alscifiled an application T6 suitiproReFtywasrecordedinthen 'plairiti^^^i^n8atlt^N®5'i3i,^4|a ebmmunity and ;-f-lindu 'SDccessionS i are in joint possessipn over the suit ^stors and this possession is continue sr deed. Along with this civil suit, the temporary injynction avemng that the ame ofplaintiffs and defencfant No. 2to 6^aRd^R{|ies(^im^ienee£ eyha^e^rtitioneathe^^ i^5cESg?thiSif:i)aintH:l%^Se|6nge<i1(a|(3Qwtf gl.avif;:.st'iall^nQKbe;^a[pg|icaBle^ancf;:;thsy are governed by the cystbms 'plre'CTJIing sin tMeir ieBrirffiiunit^ in^^^ widows and daughtersf do not siil agncyltural land: . Though, the plaintiffs are in after execution 6f the sale deed. I dispossess the plaintiffs. Defendai :;Ceed in the ancestra) pr6|)eFl|i8S^ajnd 1 possessipn of the suif property eyen However, defendant Nb. 1 is trying to W No.2 in her written statement ctenied the allegations of the plaint and st^ted that though they are by cast srond butthey. are followers of the Hind(i religion and they haye adopted Hindu rites and also they are gpverned| by Hindu SUccession Act and Indian Succession Act.. II has been fu(ther pleaded that after death of her husband gamely Kushal Singh i^ the year 1993-84, hernamewas T1!'f'T 1"' 'I1T R B :3a-HG—78 '3:=r.;-<ii'li.ici;af,?;S^il*fire;';K)<fli-My< s^v ^i.R-ii*. ^W3II^?T*t|i'=h; t.^ I''1.''. '\ NINCTI thNtcti "y;t^o~ ^3tj^TTR?7i<l^lI;y<y:i) t^ireT ^ife ss^s -»3- mutated ih the revenue records to further submjts that th®.suit lanijl was orally partitioned Aetvreen the plaintiffs and the other faniily- meml| possession oftheallotted sharefor transferred the possession of the ;<*l<<irt41-1^W(!if'if'KI:Ef'^t:Sl«;K ^i' 3Tfin'31I^f':;'1 1;.:''':' thieisknQwledge ofthe defendarits: She er^dyring the time-of her hushand and on the basis of the sajd oral p^rtition; the parties were in separate the-last 25-30 years. It is submitted by her that she has ^executed the tale dead after full consideration and suit.prQperty on the date of sale and thus, defendantNo. 2 isin.possessilpnsince 30.09.2002. Defendant No. 1 in his repl'l? has stated that defendant No. 2 has transferred her share in fhe suit F|ropertyafter gettihg full consideration, thitough|i^isteredMleJyieed:Nes|Bt*hersubmitstha^^ gonffana ffiey^are^lgoveimed^^^ plaintiffe^a:|def^ant?NiES^||iW!l|gj|g^^i^el^;siriGs^he^l|^nle;:^^ husband <% cl&lsna^^Mi^iriamefy^ over the suit property; <?n Itie bas suit land has been transferred tcr jleftnclaht N6. 2 ahd bv ttia sale'deed executed by her, defendant No. 1 in possession. -pass^d Learned trial Court restraining the defendant No. 1 'fro plaintiff and againsMliis orderthis a Learried counsel 'f&r;the plaintiffs and defendahts are?®cna'i| Hjndu Syecession Act, th®provi^ Kof;t)ral"pai-titioh,^lte possessioErOfthe jdt the possession and sinee then he is an prder ' of temporary injunction TI intei-fering withthe pQssessiohofthe apsaitias^been preferred. apFlellaiit/clefendant No. 1 submits that the |by^^east;andas peF Seetion 2(2)^ofthe lons" 6f 1-findu 'SuccseiSsion ACt, is ] not nnii Bnij..r ISI'iR B I KS- :a^HG—78 B» 311^1 qiTlcl-jifbi ^T SH^T fl^^i<t) '": s MINtll ^Weta ^5f.-<il-yi(i1t<,^SiTtf'WIS,'Rl<:fllM'y. ^, ,^.^,; J>g0/<0.^ "•^^&o •311^!W'c!3 t'^i^^T) ^iRff^ftaCT^i _-^'— applicable ;to them. He ftlrther impugned brder'; even after record| whether the persoris belbnging lo Suceession Act;;1956oriiot; It ha|; in favour 6f the plaintiffs. :The argues that though there is recital has executed sale deed after obl defendant No. 1 is in possession statement, •aefendant N®.2 hasst after obtaining the jconsideratjon. paraSraptiSSS of tlie impygned ^1a6iejttie^sale^ee<|£appBars.1:o^ iudgment t-eeorteawSiiliffiisiZOOO^ cdunsel for the appellant/aefenijlant presumption of correcthess inIHe under Section 58 of the Registrati^n cogent and strong evidenee. In thi ought to have drawn this presumrtti temporary injunction. He further recorded a findihg that it is still tji Section 2(2) of Hiridu Succession caseornot. ' ' Taking into eonsideration^tl-l defendanf No. 2, th& CQyr(?fc>elcn8 ;<=nnlCT<ili ^I+ICTI^ rS^ <fa^i< ^? aiRmsn^Wi''', ^ Isubmits ttet in paragraph. 18 of the l|nglEtfinding.thatit^isyetiobe<clecided IscfiedUj&tnbehaveacloptedthe l-1indu been held that it is a primafacieease cojjnsel -fbrthe appellant/defendant No. 1 |in the sale deed bytM&vanderthatshe (ailiing •full consideratfon ancl Iherefore, 4s^('the suit property and jn her wntten tated that she has transferred the land |Even then, the learned Gourt below in or(ler has reeorded a syFrriise'thaf prima IwitiioutccJnsiclOTatiotiyrelSing^Mpcirithe ^^;.:^.^ E@£S:.48®3 l:lie^maB:eft''oBfsfti^f''I0ass ^hfelea^^thR&i^ IS1^S/&sS^faiKt^SQSeadS^^^ 'Nio?K:'suBmits^?tKat%h®net'''is:^a inaorsement mayellayfihe^ub-registrar Act, and it can ;t>e rebutted only^ by a presentcasealsoleamedCourtbetow tion for acljudicating the application ftr Isubmits that leamed Court belcw Has be decided whetRer the provision of |ftct, 1956 are applicable in the present e Fival isontentions;^th??plaintiffs^and lias'AOTOi^it^ held; at the^^ima,1^ XI-HG—78 aii^i'wtfg^N? ^n STT^T:'giTnqE? ^ *11«(C'lT«»*(T^i ^^^t-yf^^'^.'a'lfipfSl'rii'H^*. .^.SK^.^.MS.^.....^,... 31I^?T3(^('^^^): 'Rgraz'nftasn^r _^~ ease was.jn 'favouKof the plaintiffs. M.R Hrah Cburt' injthe^ffiatter q'liqfoflti; *ii^<nf:^1^%t?-^^R '%'3Jfg*T3n^F: •" Relyjng uponth&juidgerrie'ntpassedby f^K^f^i SfslhKWs. WleviMalhSnah Goncf_reported ip AIR 2002 M.P. 112, learned counsel -for ^the appellant/defendanf No. 1 submits fhat the plaihtiff is required to plead and prove that the customs prevailing law as modified by the statutoi-^ la|w i.e. Hindu Succession Act, 1;956 and thus, it is applieable in'their commi|inity. Reliance isalso placed uponthie deeision reported in 200(VSB)SCC Vs.-Pi'anMsaiihland OtfWtS. In contra; learned eoynsel jniei.igne^.orderfiasbeenRassed do^S,:not:i~eall:^|i:yfa :i!"itei'tsi'en'ss-; '(j^not-.sueceed^sis'tieKprevailjng n the community are the part- of Hindu %7in the inatter of L.alM^nwMsnihl i'for the respondents submits fhat the mfte hasis ofcpgsnt feiaspnjngiancf it |;t-li6'fi.irfher'submits that^artiesare by east :goiW:ancl;ia&|p[erT|arovistoniofgS^^ 2(2) of; l-tincltt?.SuceesiBh ftct, theyareinoKsowei^eds|^%eAcl3^TO58^ndt^ lM5toms]^the!;gsn8^eommuriity.sH further submits that theyihitiated t|ie partition preceedirigS insthe"Court of S. D;0, and the sale deed was go) no right to execute the sale deed a| and everyipieee of land recorded executed and as such thetvender has s all tHe co-sharers areiowners ofeach in their names. 1-te alsd submits that they are in joint possession trf tlie|stlit property and defendant No. 2 had' never obtained possession and tliu^, the order of partition in)ier favouris^ under challenge. Referring td p^ragraph 23 of the impugneel order, learned cotinsel submits that evisi 29.02.2003 bythe^.D.O.Kharasi was ex^tiuted on 30.Q9.2003. ReM |i aftSr^assing Ihe stay ^order dated ^a, which was in forc®,ttie sale deed mg upon the decision reported&in_AiK XI-HC—7S sn^i ?iipfs;iH? '9^ ^n^T'sFHRR' flW<tFsh*i)tt» 'SS'^^ipfi'cTq, ^'aly'TSi^fac-ll'M^ . :.M-M^SM'/C^: •^tee- 'S(I^?['?TSI^i"<^sli-^'^B> jRgiiiTt ^9 •B'^t — g 1896 StfftfBme Coutt 1864 in the VS&StetebfB ar^and(Xftel»s paragraph 47 and 48 6fth6 aboVe^ SuccessioffiAct nor -the Indiah Succ governed tribals. Ahd custom, as is people and regioil to region an8~ it i 6f tribal inhabitants 'as offeriding and each case must be exarnjned Court. Further peiying upon the jud; Alft^J02 H.R (77) in (he matte ^ tttKifloaaAtSaivovanel:solf tS,^ :thaf;:^s1;lle?^ ies';ar&i§K»;eKb^cstSi the sale desel exeo.ited b^etnal^is 1 have heard learned counsell case laweitect by the Fespective^p^ theEsuJtanffiatthisstageitisnof definite conclusiori whether defendtnt limited owner as per Hindu law b< owner as per provisions of the Act| during the trial. At someplaces in t( recorded by the Court below also.l arrived to the conclusion that the ground that Hindu Syccessipn Aet i^ they belonged to gond connmunity) finding tbat'the matter is to be de^ ^t>f<ild^ flW^I ff f^l(^t:<Rn't$H '^.Sf&SSfI^F^ ''' jnsWerwf MacKw IQ^mwsnS bffiws lesif|nediGOunsetsubmitsthatit)isstEttedjn leitedjydgernentthatneittiierthe Hindu !|ssSi6n Act ts apptieable to the'custom wellrecognized, varies fram peaple t6 ^ not desirableto deGlarethecustQms ^Aiiticle 1-4,fS and 21 oftheeonstitution |when full ftcts are placed before Bie jud^ment of HP. t'Sah Qxirtreowtedm of Sonam Dt^na and^oitlwl's 'W& {imed CQUnsel for ttie lilairiflffsjSubrhits (fctlleiActW1856 isinot apialicableand WaSul^ . '" ^.^^ '; : n. ':.!'.'; •',;1 jl for the parties aiwi gonepBroygtetHB (Ttias. This is the preliminary stage sf plaSsible'forthetriarjeourt toamvis afc^ No; 2 succeeded-the praperty as a^fore the Act of 1956 or became full of 1956 and this fact shall be proved ;|ie impugned order, it has been rightly However, the learned trial Court as llaintiff has a prima facie case on the not applicable to the parties because This finding is at variancewith the fcided at the time of triail. The Court .XI-HC—B m sn^?i ?Rt=(S-ii!* TT^T 3?n^?T Sh*-lich "qWMI (h*11<sb ^s1'^tl*f)1(?)*tP®r-ul*)'l®,^[s«Yi tll,< ^.^s&^M^fe. 3ii^?T''ra^(;cpf3^tT) ^BIRR Atl 3;1I^5I -~ 9 - .<:t)|^[tl<lll*ll*l<lf'^ T^I[?IT ^ ^sifgiT gn^r below has also amved -to the co|iclusion that the parties were in joint posseSsion of the suit property arjd there was no partition in the family. However, in the applicatioh for tei|npdrary ihjunction it has been averred that for thesake of convenience, |the suit property has been partitioned between the plaintiffs and defendatrts No.3to 6, The finding of the trial Court that the sale deed is wittioul evidence and cpntrary to material -vendee both have categorically stat| was executed by defendant No. 2 ^ any consideration, is also withoyt any Svailable on record as the vender and ^d in their pleadings that the sale deed <> .. '.' .''•"• '' •• :•' ' : . |fter obtaining full consideratjon and the possession was defivered on the <|ate of sale. Even there is a recital to thi& effect in the sale deedand it h|as been endorsed by the SuB-registrar and thys.^here is jpresuigptron fh^^he: consideration was flaid ^ same. partition proceedings, the suit land The Cpurt below has also l|3st sight of the faet that in a bipartite ^vas drderedto fcie partitidned and the appeal preferred t?y the plainfiff dl(:as been dismissed by ths Appellate Cvwt. 'THe ;p|eadings ofjltie yefen|3ant NQ. 2 that there was a partition duringtMelifetimeofherhusband1t6mS25-30years.backfiridssUpportjn the averment ofthe application for|lemporary injunction. Thus, the finding of the trial Court that the plaintifl appears to be erroneous and the favour of defendant No; 1 for ' has established a prima facie case prima facie case, if any, was in the he reasons stated in the foregoing paragraph. For present case, tlle suit land has been purchased by defendant No. 1 from defendant N|o. 2 by paying a consideration of Rs. 1,55,OQO/-/which is a substantial sui|n and/if the. suitj§;decreedin fayouE of '\-.^1— XI-HG—78 3n^[ qil.6liq>: ^iSHSH^Tsti+iiqi ^ ^^ ^ HI*1CTI Sh*11<h ^^Sf1 ••i<l'41d*f,:^til<H<ls:,; fartl'Hy. —^^.^.i^lg^'Q.^.......w^-aeo- ^i^i rt^ ('j^^'y?) defendant,; then the land in questic the plaintiffs maylse cbmpensated incurring. Rot-, the aforesaid reasons Cciurts below. restraining possession of the plaintiff over the accordjngly this appeal is allowed the impugned order passed by the defen<?ant No.1 from interfering with the 1 suit land deserves to be disfriissed and a|ndtheimpugnsd6rderissetaside. With the afbresaid obsen ^liSposed of.: Rarties3ar^errtltle8^rrertff|e^;^pyoftthe®rder; ;l=M^lcl^1 MI+<dT "^f l^^^Rf't^.K ^? 3iRpT;3U^[^1 ' . ". n shall be revertedto the plaintiffs and sujtably for the losses that they shall be ations, M.C.P.Np. T4Q8/2004 stands Sd/- DSurendra Mishra Judge