IN THE HIGH COUKT OF JUDICATURB At BILASPUR (C.G.t First Appeal Na.^ ~0f 2007 (Meni&randQin of Pirst Appeat u/& 9& of Civit Procedure Code.} 1^ APP&LLANTS; l^- MakhanLd S/o. I^teShri Kri^ram DEFEENDENTS aged about^ years, ^ tft-' ^-r ^^ / Sr" \7 •' 2.^/ BalramS/o. LateShri Kriparain agedabout67 years. /y ^^ ^. Rajababu S/o. Balrafi'i,%ed about42 years. ^Y<y^y --- :- - -: .• s: '^•?JE- y^y/,/ . „ .„ „, „. i .. /A'\^^<> ^.t SureshKumarS/o. Balt'am.ajgedabout 40years. ..• •$< .yy/<,v ^" ~-—-——,-.—,—; / ST' /(*<\7 ^1 ^s Rajkuiiiar S/0. Makhan lal, aged about 48 years. t .^-6. RaHieshKi.imarS/o.Makhartlalagedabout 9^y ^ A\^^ 43years. ^y AIt are resitienee of Jarhabhafca Bilasptn-, Thasil & Cl' Distfc-Btlaspur^C.G.) -VERSUS- RESPONBBNTS: l^- Ohanshyam S/Q. Late Shri Kripai-am, aged PLAINTIFFS |ij7 about 67 years, , 3- ?^"' \ ^ 4. Parasram S/o. Late Shn Kriparam;, aged about 65years. ,. Mithai Lal S/o. Late Shri Kriparain aged about 61 years. Bhaiya lal S/o. i&te Stiri Kriparara aged abaut 57years. • ';;',/' .y' - •p'i ~i»~' 5. Gyan Bat &/&. Late Sba KripaEaia, ^ed about 41years. Respaadent N&. 1 to 5 are Fesidence oS JaEi-habhata Bilaspur, Tfaasil & Distt.- Bilaspur ( C.G.) DEFFENDSNTS ^ 6, Smt. Rast Bai W/o. Sasiaru, aged about 51 years l R/o. Village - Padipar, Tahsil & Distt.- Bilaspur ( C.G.) > Panna Lal S/o. I^iar aged ab&ut 62 years. AU F/&. Jarhabhata Bilaspur Tahsil & Distt.- Bila^>UF( C.G.). i ^^' State ©fCbhattisgarh , tbrough the Colleetor Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur ( C.G-) trya Bai, Tijiya Bai, Ghhuntii, Gendlal, Lakhaa are (iied during the peitdencyoftheexeeutton and &e piaintiff did not tBade tfaeir LRSas a party in thecase.) MEMQRANDUM Oli'FJSST AKP&M. UN&ER SEGyi€ffi[96 0>F 7B& CiySi, PfiOCSDUBE CODB- Suit for itertition and posse^f^^afa 'v'ws '•<»! °? HiGHCOiMTOFCHHATTlSGMWiATBSL^NJR inQieBench:Hon''bteShriJusti ^PrashMitKunBU-MiShra f.A.HChSivifmQj ikhan La5 and otheri OffiCTS. •©h PostfoT^l-W-2310. ^\ -•-^:— Sd/- prashant Kumar Mishra Judge \ ^&s -^.3- •^: HiGH COURt OF CHHATTiSGWEHAT BitASroR Sinaie Bench: Hon'bie ShFi Justice Prashant KwnW WSishra F.A.Sto.fiZ/^O? APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS Vereys Makhan Lal and others Ghanshyam and othere Shri Sunil Sahu, counsei fw a^ ShRRupeshShiwa^a^,eoynSelfoFFesponder!teNo. 1 &2. Smt;Renui<tochar,CQUn tferre§ponde(T6BNo.3,4<iRdS, Shn Ajay E)wflve<Ji, Deptfty Goyt. Adwealeife!' 9 S^it^'espQndent NQRefQrotherrespontfenteNQ.gandT.thoughseraed. No.8. W:>PEALUNDERSECTroNSSOFTHEC»3DEORGlVILPi^3EDURE ^UQSMENT (_^t_.09.^ie) Thfe tiret appea! under Se^lon 96 of C.P.C. has been preferred to chaltenge the flna! deeree in a suit ft peulition passed by tiie VI AcldftiQna(DistriGtJydge,8ilaspuron 09-03-2007 in MiweilaneousGmi Case No, 25/06. (2) The appellants were the defendants in Ihe trial Court. The plainttffs/respondents No, 1 to 5 instttuted the syit for partition and possessionon 08-04-1970 wiShrespsctto ttie propaties mentioned in t ' ' :: • • • : '^ /: \ • : Schedule W to 'K' annex^ witti the piairrt and for m^ainai^ -(" ' -':.'' ' ' .: '' " : ' Rs.100/- per month to the originai ptaintiff No. 5 Smt. Geetstoas snd original plaintiff No. 6 Qvanbai. The ptaintiffs No. 1 to 4 and No. Qlwere bom to Geetabai through defendant No. 1 Kriparam. Defenciant No. 2 MaMian Lat and defendffliit No. 3 Balram are the sons of iparam tt'iroyghi^^vtfe Smt. Nwd nwar. Kriparamn and tsharwethe sons of Ghherik who is dead. l^iar ciied during pendency of the sytt. The Pi1opertie^a?situatw 8ft viH^e Tift^i; Ameri, Jarhabhatha, Ghyru, $atda SiS:' -''^^^ •'^,s-. :£.'s ^ —3-.- and othere mentioned in Schedule 'ft' to 'K" ofthe plaint in tahsil and uistrict - Bilaspur, According to the plaintiff the suit property are the joint Tamily properties, however defeodaffrt: pararam in collusion with his wfe NanuRunwar peinoved flie ptaintiffe 1rora the house situated at Jarhabhatha in 1964 and they started living in Cftaniidih. in the year 1966 iparam gave SK quartere to ttw plaintiffe^r their T^idence and in 1969 the seventh quarter was gwen to the piaintlfis. The defendants are disposing crftftejointfam{iyprope(tywh^OTtheplaintiffea ^e^ torpartition. .. ' : '^':.••''•.• ! :< • •:. '. : . (3) The defendarrts denied e etairn of the plaintiffe. tt was deRied that Geetsfeai was wfe 6f param it was atso stated that ptaiHBffe are not the members of joirrt Hindu famify. AcGorciingtothe tiefendants Sand bearing Khasra No, 604/01 •flilageTifra mentionedin Schsduie A, asra No. 95, 482, 501/2 and 503 situateci in wiiase Ameri and rnehtioned in Sctiedule'Br;Khasr8No.297,300,3mmentionedlnschedute'C'have Been acqyirwi by Kdparam and ishgn" ftwn their own eamings and is not a part of a joint property. it was atso stated th^ Khetera No. ^2 and 302^3 have been given to Kriparam and tshar by Ghuni and ftsus these iands are their seif acquired property. On-Khasra Nq, 86, whfeh was given Ishar and Kriparam by GhheriK, a S<a ^cha'hQus&was constructei whtoh wastesterQnconvertetfintoaPerfAahousefromtheirownincomeandis not an ancesu-aS property; Similarty the defendants stated that tands bearing Kh^fa No.83rt, 83/2, 88/taRd 98/1 menKonedinSdiedyle'E' :v .''/;;',.. • ^are the self aequireci property of th&defendaite t^iar and t&iparama, : ,("'•- ^.:.1'J''^:^-':PX rf ^•.i '-:V. Vw :l»^ tl: -5- \^ ^ (4) At the wid of triat a preiiminary decree was passed jn Civil Suit No 3-A/1970 in the Court of Disfrfet Judge, Bilaspur on 02-02-1973. The tria! Coun recorded the fQllowing findings;- (a) The parties constituted ajoint Hindu famiiy. (b) Khasra No. 607 of Schedule 'A', -asra No. Sctiedule 'B' are euicestral property. (c) LandsofSGhedute'D'isnGtancesftatproperty. (d) Properties of Schedute 'C' were not purehasec! from the income jointproperty. (e) PrupertiesdescHbeinSGh^ule'KH'andSi.No.3, StoSarenot founu to be ancestrat properties, simiiarly land of ScheduSe 'G'was aiso not purohased fromincomeof fundsof jointfaffiily. (f) Out of propwties mentioned in Schedule 'E' wily Wiasra No. 86,94, 87a.nd92areancestra.tproperty. (8) Onty 6 dismilt of t-and oul of the tand on which buildingstands is anwstrai property. The remaining tancS and buiiding were nrt, aequired fromjointfamityfunds. (h) Properties ofsyiedute 'K'was ancestrat property. Ptaintiffs are entitiedto1/16shareeachfrQmhatftheprQpertiesfattingtQtheshareof ^iparam and ptaintiff Geetabai isatso entiUed to a 'share. \:. • ' • • . • ' . : •• . (5) The triai Court passed the pi^i(ningffy decree fo ttse foltowns effect:- • ' ' . :- ; : :: ,. ^* ;i6a! -^- !'\.- c..c" ^ No.1to5 sepsrate wffi "{j} tt is hemby dectered fhat e plamti and 8ie defef!<isnts No. 1 to 3 are efi68e<S j»ssessfon of the ptopwty gweft Sielow m Stcc theirshares, wz. W^sharseaGfl. (a) Ktiasfs Nos. 604/1 anct 607 shsate in 77fra andshowninsci'iedule'A'ofttie plaint. (b) ^iasraNos 482. W1/2, SQ2, §03, W4, 506/2 arsd 50S situate at vsSage Amen andshQVfnm schedute'B'of fhe plamt. (G) Kftasra Nos 67, 86, 92 and 94, ^fate atvSfege J8ftiabhata andshownwi SGhedule 'E' Qftheplamt Tfte house ^yatedOT Jarfiabfiafe andshown m ^esclMdule'Ka'offfieplamt @ The plaintiffsNo. 1tQ5aresaWwStogetWff' share tn ^ pric®of ^e fend meas^g ^ cfe<a»?a&ouf of ths fand sm whK^ Q housQ ^EWRmsc^Gdula'Fa'^ ^aint is situated at vitlage^tartsabhstta affier its v^uation ss detemsnedbyfhecommssonw. It fe yurifterorateredafKf^creedffiafffte decree be sent to the Goff9Gbfr,a'SaspuruttderQnfsr&S,R!ule 18, Cwit Procudure Code and^cftoR S4, Cwff F^ocecfeire Cocfe, the agficultwa! tand shown jn (!) (a) to (c) fot pafStian 2, .4nd tf iS fortfter ofdered and decreed a( Sto' Ctiittey AdvoGate BiSaspw be and is hereby appointed as Commissoner tomak6paf6Gon of^e property mertffoned in 1(d) asd. (it) according to ffte shares gn/en afcove. Wfe fes fe fsxedat Rs.300/- wfti'cft fe to be depo^ed &y e^amffi?s. 3. That if the sai<jt\Gommtssomr ffnds that parGGon cannof6e made equaf ftew^en ffie pafSessccording to their respecffve righte wffftetrf prejucffee to (fte ffgftte and Neresf Qfsorne ofthem heshalt fepoft (fte amount of cssmpensaffon to b®rrf8d& fey fhe parffes foreyislityofpaftition. 4. AK partres to (ftis suff sftaffprotfyce befere or \ mspectfon to (fte sa»dCommfssfoner of alt the property b wen Ofci pafSuORedtoy hm and a!t ^octiinsnts rsNmg (ftereto ssa/s fri their possession orpower. ^ -5- !^ ^s, 5. That of e pmpefty men6oned in ihe Comt'nissionershaKnotpartitionthefoliowmgprQpefty:- -(MenffonedmfOfaJtof^fc}. 6. Wat ff?e yariafon sftaff fae effeeted and ?sport (feefeof m3dstotf?sC^rtonorbsfwBthsi7 dayofApiS1973. .\ •.' •.. . • • ' :'' And that (fte sum <)f Rs. 131&^0 P. bs pa»i tsy ffie defencfante to (fte ^afn(fflfe on accoufff of e eo^ ofNs wiffi thteresttheFeonatihefstefffpe^ffRtfaerafittBmfiom thisdave todawoffealisatson. 7. As the siitt wss ms^Htetf-as a p8(^ers(% ? fie/sfey direct ynder Preter 33, Riit^ 10, Cmf Pmcedups Cwte, that the StateGowmmentwiStfwsoveran amountofRs. 5,958^- ffomtfieplaiRt!ffswdanamotintQfRs.1,S9'!-S}p.Mimthe ij^ndac^. A {w ^ffief^f^^ wfrttothe (3o8s^n^^^^ St8siwr,f6rhis1fnowiedgeforthispufpose" (6) Thepreiimtnarydecreewasnotchaiieng^byanyofthepartiesto thesuit. (7) An e^pdcation'for preparaiti(m of flnal deeree was preswjted on 11-07-1973 andCommissionerreportwasGaiied.Becayseofdeathor atherwise of the Gommissioners new Gwnmissioners were appointed fromttmetotimetosubmitreportafterm^it'QpartitiQnefthepropertyas direeted in para2ofthedecFee.TheGomTOiss!dfteruftimatelysubm ted his report on 10-03-M06. Theimpignec! final decree has been passed byacceptingtheCommissioner'sreport;' T (8) S^ame^ CQunsei forthe appeliantwouldsubmft^ i^inofapartoTthepFeiimir^aecreeastwas^rriinthsjudgra^ indpreiiminatydecreepas^aon 02-02-1973 that Khasra N0. 9S is not ''"^•'ffSf ^'.cSe^ "%, % ",: """ ,ylj '^::'^ '"^s''r- w -6- L i ••i-i.s Bii- and pr^iminary decree passed on 02-02-1973 that Khasra No. ^ is not the property ofjoint family, (9) Counsel Tor the re'spon^errts hav® sffgued that the appeilants having not chattenged the preliminary decree gsre not entitl^ to chaltenge the Tinal decree which has toeen pas^d on flie basis of Gommissiorsw's reportwhichisinsiGcorclancewlththepreilminarydecree, (10) This Court v^id firet ^t^^ w^ objeeKon tegardlm mairtainabiittypfthtSlappeai.SectiQnQTQftheeNeofCMlPr^^ reads as under:- ».l by a of this shall &e wSwhiish pretlmmary decree.- Whefe my pafty aggfieved pre'ifminary decree passed aftsr (fts cofnmencement Code- does not appesl from sych decfee, he pfBctudedfmm djsptiung fe correcfness OT any may be prefeffecf frbm (fte ffna? decree." (11) The chattenge in tMs appeat to the finat decree is on the groynd that byjnGluding Khasra No.^in thefinaidecree, thepreliminarydecree has been amended and thus the finat decree is in variance of the preSiminary decree. Sn ottiw w^rds ftie a^eitants are in fart assertir^ thest the prwiminary ciecree has become final and the ^ame cannot fae •\ • • '• . •:•'-'•..••' '...•• amended white passing the final decree arri thus Uie finsd deuree Is amenable tochalienge totWsextent. Theappellantsarenotehaiiengin^ the preiiminary decree itself but we maiflng a prayer that ttie finat Mecree shQulct be passed in accoBlance with the preiimiRary desree; Tfe correctoess of the preliminary decree has not been chatlengedl in this ••ill ^<l::w ^ ^, s^ ^ •iya •^ •^ Sl St' ET?" Si>: ^ As s 1 •"3•-1: 3- '•-»». o: i—k ^^ •^"*s to .fli. in & tt. 3- d5'tt- 1 •"ill.4 'o 1 •3- l;z G fl» ,3a. § m •"3" 's' (ti ^ •s- i :§' 3' fI; i •i, 1-; 3;t 3.'s •o 's. <-t*'•t. o .Q; •^»ri. .0' "3 % w'a & ^»f»- 3 :Cl. CTw ^i':1 t" ffi•z •s. :ffil .(Bs 'S ®. 1§' !:T "3 •ffl 1 ; 3 .rI: a. **l* •s. •<*<+.-i <»>. g1 :& :% CL: .g. 3- fB 1 e- """+> &. :§;• 33: 1~<' a :!-®:is :"^ 3T ::Ew o-^ '3'"9 s R ;a f^ LtMlA(p, ••••I :oi: 1 o.^ 1 1 =t! 3s. §: a. s&'I ;S=h ^:i: s- <"t1t ^ 3"s % .s' sa .3 -a_a y —j .s, s?:i .'s':t: :'3 1 T^ s 1:3.. I :3'I : a. tt ''"'^ I1 § s. (D•^i f-r jrI B. w 3ws M, ® s1 (D s.s •o 1 ^i •u. ;1: \ ~&- 9%?- ?^ i: iN:^ ^/ / t.^ffi^ ^^f^f m: ^®/^i^W®»^^^^^^^^y^^^ s^'^7^ sit S^K^ ^^^^^^^y^'3^^^^^ a^W^^^^f^^f^'^ f ^ VSS'R^ s^wf^j WW ^ ^JSW (5F9' ^ ^^^^' w^>w ^" ^ ^g^?': % / fM ^ ^^^v^'^f Ris^.^ ^ t ^ ®W^^?^^N'W'%3^':1 ^f ^W&i , :^Jl:^ ' ./-^^llTOy ^t /t^^rjg^^,B%^:^,^ ^;^,5f ^ ^ w 12 ^ilS^ %7'a^«%Qtf8^r^nm-T^, 'gaft wf 9^®^ '''^^Mmf^'^Q^l^^^^l^ ^c^^ '' feW^%9%^^^^,^ri^.^^^T^:^^ W^BCT?i9'*WNi'^7i"'gW'^.57'i%"^'/'' ^ : ' ^ . (13) White passing the finai decree ttte triai Court has fteid that properties at Sl. No. 3to 10 InWe Gommissioher's si^! E ownecland )ossessed bythepersCTiwrtioiSinpossessionofthesai(iproperty.Wfth respecttopropertyNo.(lJ)be^n8i<3Tasra^^^h^ is dectared ss joint property of ©hanshyam,Parerwi, Mithaile^ Bhaiyalai, t anandBair^,ailsonsofKRp^amasreflectinginthecaHS^ Thus, the cont^ion of the appeiiantthat properiy^N made a part M the flnaldecsse ai^a deotaration has feen m regar'd to the said property appeare to-be jusBfi^. (14) tn th& preiiminarv deeree the fbtlowiT^ has been^ ^ ugtf^raph.ST'^- ::; •• .:;: . •1 '. .^.;:: ; •• .' '• '• -, : '' y: ^ • . •• "37. Thede^MlantKispafam (S.VK'y has'^gedttiat he putvhased the fanets situate !R yHlf^ JsihaShata om (fteseparateearomg&offtffnseffafftfh^SfoftertehaFVKfe •<y^_. '\ !M; ""te^. !';:%te.S^ l!w; 'v' -5- sate dw!ds{E)(.D-3,D-4,D-5andD-7}. The land bearing Khasra (Vo. 88fl was parchased for Rs. 2950/- wde safe deed {Ex.D-3fon 24-7-1958. Lancf bearifig KhasfaNo. 83 was pvrchase<S1vrRs.1WO^on15-'i-1958 vide sate tteed (Ex.D-4). Land &eafmg Khasra W. 83/2 was purchaseet fcr Rs.300^-on 21-1-195S (Ex.D-5). Lsntf &eafrog KSasre Wo. i3 was purohased OR ^5-^-1y58 for Rs.SOQi1'- v safe {feeof (Ex.D-S). Land bearingKhasfaNo.95waspwvhasedfor Rs.4,CN}0^ on 2e^f959 »^sate deed (^ amoufitof Gonacleratwi paid feFpyroftase p^ ese <an^§Of wflage Jarhabhata issWGWfiffytafgeandthepfspeftywtWGts was anGe^fsl aR^jointlsmfty pmipeffy mposssssoRof^e joiRtfamilycQuhlnc^fQmsawfficieMiwGfevstoolwfgto^he tefg&ffum&erQffamf^fflemOefswhQweretofeefnamteffted Qut w the joint famity income for 8 pupchaw of 'Uiess pmpefSes. The delendsRts tshar and KripaFam hati ind9penelefftmeansofe8miRgsand,th9f1eteFe,tt}e^aRdaf t6e cfefeBdarrte fffgf ffiey acgured ft oirf of #»effseparafe 9ammg3 caiinot be qtie^oned. t betievsthe stamt ofthe dfffsnaants on this Gount and tiM ffiat ffie following fan^s situate at wlfage -jaftwbhata dtd not form fff6 joint fasnily prQpertvofthefamity:- KhasraHiimber 88fl sw 83/2 Area OMacie. 0.87w . "•. 0.20acre. 0.86 8CT8.' (15) Thus, whte passing the preiiminary. decree the triat Gourt ifound hat Khasra No. ^ was purohaswl jointty by Wparama and Ishar. 1 sie passing the final ctecree the ttial Gourt has passed adeclar^on th^ uroperty No. (Tl) i.e. Ni^Ta No. 95 of viils®e^arhabhathawouWbe Junt iroperty of the sws of Knparam. Re^ndent No. 7 Pannat^ \: ^ - 10-- ippears to be son of tshar who was aiso a co-owner of Khasra No. 95 aions with Kriparam, therefQre,the deciaration mads in the finai decree with respect to property No. (^l) asra No. ^ is confrsuy to the prelimioary and is Uius desaves to be set-aside. (16) WSh r^ard to Uw objection raised during ^eparation of Commlssionerreport it is to benotic^thgtthe pai'ti tothesuitdid nol aliowttieCommissionertomeaajreGertairiproperties.BeGaUseoftheir non cp-operation the Gommissioner aralAhe triai Court have yttimateiy directed that property No. 3 to 10 shaii beiong toj the petsoo wAio is in possession of ttie said part. Simitariy property Np. 1 & 2 sre in possessiort of Batram and Ma an respeGUvety and they haye bews declared to be owner aid possesaon holda" of the said ^operties. There is no megatity in the said division ofthe property. In fact eweptforthe dispute about the Khasra No, 95 the appei'ant has not raised any other point in argument. ttistherespQrrelentinthisappeaiwhotriedtoargue thatthe<;ommissiQFierhasnotconsideredtheirofcjection.HQwever,the respondents have not preferred the appeat against the final decree. (17) The suitwasfsied on 08-04-1970, morethsn-Wyearehavepassed 1 :" . • ; • :: ': . after tiiing of the sutt. The parties^ipeartobeinsetttedpQ^^sionof theiFrespectivesharesandtheCommissionerreportas^tasthefinai decree has aliofted to the res^ctive partiss ttiat part oftiie iand which are in thetr possession. Thus, the preparation trf finaS decree ap^arsto ue justified and is in consmiance with the preliminary<tecreeeXGepttti® ueclaration made wtth respeet to Khasra No. ^ of viliage Jai^afcihatha which should not have been inciuded inthe final decree as it was npt joint je>-'^—i«- amtiyproperty. !».^..' t ':s-; Y- -<:•: -n- (18) ConsequenUythe3Rpealpaft!ysucceeds.The(fec!arat!Qnmadein the decree wtth respeet to property No. (11) meRtioned in the CQmmissioner's report which is Khasra No. 95 of viii^e Jarhabhaftia is set-asiue. The decreesha(ist«8ndmodifiedtQthate)rtent.Theremainin{ lart of the decree is affirmed. (19) A yecreeKedrawnuRaicordmgty. (23) No brder m to coste. •/' Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge