B~ •^3:;' c -<T ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OE JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR u 1.51) gsil 1. S.A. No. ...^j!<?..../2004, Chain Singh, aged 45 y&ars Son of Ranjan Singh Resi<Ient of Village Sonabal Taliasil KondagaQii Distt. Bastar (€.G.) ^\.. Amartin aged 55 years ^{f :..„.:'.,•^f_; •.' •„....''- ! .' j?'<y ;Son bf Ranjaa Singh //-^/ /..'-. .. • : • ^\i..^ ' ' „ .';':. nPY^^ • Resident 6f Village Sonabal 1//l^ ^y^^ </fM^ s.y^/i' TaflJasiI?K@n(lagaon Distt. Bastar (C.G.) <? .*'y, <-^'." ^:^^'.^ ,^; ^Ja^tUrairt^agedv3t:;:Ye^ , ',. .. ' Son Of'Ha.te.Tuithar — .^ ^ ' . • -;---.:1 ~1:-1—''^~.'-.''T7^'--..1'': ;,•. : ' :' ': :: ! .' * *? Resident ofVillage Sonabal • Tahasil Kondagaon Distt. .Bastar (C.Gr.) ^4. Sabeer Singh aged 31 years Son of Late Tunhar ; : ^s^?' VResident pf Village Sonabal 's^y \ .!; ' ;'•• . ' '._;.; _ : :' .._,„;.- TahasiL KondagaorL Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 5. Dhaneshwar aged 29 years Son of Late Tunhar Resi(Ient o^ Village Soi-iabal Tahasn Kondagaon Distt. Bastar (G.tj.) 6. ^ ^ 7. 8. 9. Jagati Bai- ~ Daughter _of Late Tunliar - Resident of Village Sonabal : Tahasil Kondagaori^Distt. Bastar (C.G.) Sushila Bai - • Dayghter of L'ate Tynliar Residerif- of Village Sonabal Tahasil Koridagaon Distt. Bastar CC.G.) Malti Bai Daughter^ of LateTunhar' „. -;^:.^. •'^^••'•.. •• ^:'7'i'-':'^::^t- •:.:.':''.' ' ••"• ••• ' • "•.".. '. ' :'I^si^nft'^o'£:^jVzI'tage:S.Qaabal ' ^.•;;.: ii' ' '^&13!m.a.:£^®^s:« .^^^ .::;. - ?TaBa;sill;|^^9aga®U^©tstt.::^B:astidr..('€.G.)' Ph.obldai^.''v::''':::.'':'^'^t y'.l '-^ ' ;;^ , ,,;: Daughter <yp L^&r 'FiiijlIiar , ^ Resident o^^ VilLage SQilabar •• , Tahasil Konctagaon Distt. Bastar (e.G.) AppeIIants (Plaintiffs) VE«;SUS 1. Smt. Ghowlfdai," aged 70 years Widow 6f C*haraii :Sirtgh Resident of Viriage 5Sortabal Tahasil Kondagao.n?;Dis-tt. Bastar (G.G.) ! 1 i i i . i 1 .' u •1:?1 '"!!i'!)i'j t^l,»-:i,tii—' ';"." ni 11,1B,1IEIU lit.laBBl 9K (3) ^.h iilil Iffli 2. Asharam aged 50 years Son of Charan Singh Resident of Village Sonabal Tahasil Kondagaon Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 3. Jagdish aged 45 years Son of Charan Singh Resident of Viilage Sonabal Tahasil Kondagaon Distt. Bastar (G.G.) 4. Jagat aged 45 years Son of Charan Siugh ^Resiilent Of Village S oriabal ; ^Kasil|^<:)fflA^ Bastar (C.G.) 15;: ,Raj::esli'%aEgaged,^5: ,y®ars; ! Son of Olraran Singh » Resident of Village Sonabal Tahasil Kondagaoh Distt. Basfar (C.G.) 6. Ashmati Daughter of CUaran Singh Resident of Village Sonabal Tafaasil Kondagaon Distt. Bastar CC.G.) f ... ". • •..''•• . ......' .. '." . ' •'.. • . . •".; 7. ShantF Bai. t . • ' . ^ -». 1 : : ' • , , - Daughter of Charan Singh Resident of Viltage Sonabal Tahasil Kondagaort Distt. Bastar (C.G.) ^@ (4) 8. Kunti Bai Daughter bf Charan Singh Resident jof ViHage Sonabal ~ Tahasil Kondagaon Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 9. Kunti Bai Daughter of Charan Singh Resi^ent of Village Sonabal Tahasil Kondagaon Distt^ Bastar (C.G.) 10. Kaili Bai aged 70 years Daughter of.Belmati Resident of Village Shivni ^ahaMl? J^gdalpur Oistt. Bastar (C.G.) .l.l.Kanial:d.eii^ag^d.;~Ap''years . '.,.'', -:' ' .: ' Daughter of Betmati « - Resident of Mllage Gu-oula Tahasil Kofldagaoli Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 11A, 11B (Deceased through legal representatives) Heera Singh Husband af Late Kainaidei Resident of Village Girbula Tahasil Kondagaon Distt. Bastar (C.G.) •••»-• '. . •'•:••.•• '• ' . ' Chandar Singh Son of Kamaldef Resident of Village Giroula Tahasil Kondagaon Distt. Bastar (C.G.) u -•k-.TfTiiK-^—tnll ^. KB'I (5) 11C. Tijai Bai DaugMer of Kamaldei Resident of Village Chikh'alputi Tahasil Kondagaon Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 12. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collectbr Bastar (C.G.) 1. Respondents (Defendants) A.ppeal Valued Rs. 7160/-' Affixed Court fee Rs. 825/ (lSeeoii(i:.A^e^|ii|i8,et seetion 1:OQ (3o<le agai^st 1tl]^^|u?d?g^ie^ AppealNo.2A (^10^02 (iatef ^1.4.2004. Passed by Shri Shivmahgal Pandey Fi^ AJ3J Bastar confiirnmg the judgment and decree passed by Shri Raj fendra Pradhan C.J. Class-II Kondagaon, i;n Civil Suit No. 8A;/96dated 29.11.01) The appeltalits beg to submit as fQllows :- The fbllowing famity tree will be helpful^^^fa prpper understafidiilg of the case :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G) Second Appeal NQ.396 of2004 ^^ ii CIlain Siagh and ofhers Vs. Chowkdar aad ofhers JUDGMENT Postfor 07.01,2005 Sd/- "" ; SuniiKiHnar Sinha \ Judge f i:ii :K!^^;::a^^ @E:S * PW^VSS^S:fe^'Sa'i HIGH_COURT_OF JUDICATURE_ATBILASPUR 1C. Gt Second Appeal Np.396 of 2004 K11 Chaia Sm.gh & others Vs. Smt. Chowkdai aud others ShriV.D. Vajpai, Counsel for fhe appeUants. ShriManoj Paraajpe, Counsel for the respoiuleats on Caveat No.40/2004. e JUDGMENT ( ^1.2005) SUNILKUMAR SINHA, J, Heard on question of admission. -- (2) The plaintiffs have filed this appeal'under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against fhe judgiaent aad decree dated 21.4.2004 passedin Civil Appeal No.2-A/2002 by the FirstAdditional Dista-ictJudge, Jagdalpur ( Bastar), arisiag out ofjudgment & decree dated29.il.2001 passed in Civil Suit No.S-A/96 by CivilJudge, Class-II, Kondagaoa, Bastar (C.G). (3) The f)laintifFs filed a suit prayiag fhat the sale deed dated 01.6.1979texecuted by Siiit. Behnati iulavour ofGhowkdaibe declared nuU aad void and they be decl^red to be fhe owaers of fhe property. They also prayed for partition claiming yz share in the said property. I 1U-J--M B ' iiaii^^^^i^^^^'^i^lis^il^^j^;^^^ <s -i- (4) The plamt aUegations are fhat both fhe parties are meinbers ofthe same famUy belonged to late Siikru. They are govemed by Mitakshara Hnidu Law. Late Sufcru was havinj 25.30 acresofland ia village Sonabal, Talisil Konda^aon, Distt. Bastar. He died on 17.6.1960, After death of Sukru these properties were received in succession by his two sons Ranjan Siagh and Charan Siugh, alongwith his widow Siat.Behnati. The records were also inutated on their naiaes. Sotne ofher landed properdes were also purchased by the two brofhers and the entire property came as 27 acres. The plaiatifis aie successors ofbrarich of Ranjan Singh whercas the defendants are successors of braach of Charaa Siugh. It is also alleged in para 4 of fhe plauit ftiat both the brothers divided fhe lands ia two parts aad they were iu separate possession and eajoyiaeat offhe sanie. On fhe date ofcause ofaction, the plam.tifEs cauie tp know that certaui laads have been sold uader the aforesaid sale deed by Sint. Belmati to Siiit.Chowkdai whereas she was aot entitled to alienate fhe same. It is also pleaded fhat Snit. Belinatiwas aa old aud iafimi lady and was not ia a position to inove, therefore, she was not in a position to execute fh.e sale deed. IIL fact, the sale deed was not executed by her. {S) Ttie defendauts ffled theu-written stateinent den}?ing^ the contentions ofthe plaiatiffs. Itwas pleaded by them that ia a Revenue Proceedmg No.5-A/-27/1978-79 on 24.7.1979 a regular partition had taken place between fhe parties aad in ftie said partitioii iy3Id of the entire lands admeasuTUig8.92 .acres was aUotted iu share ofSiiit.BelDaati. Bai. After'the said -3- -A '«' partition on 01.6.1979, Belmatibai sold fhese laads to defendant no.l through a registered sate deed who caine iu possession fhereof. (6) The learaed tdal Court frauied various issued in fhis case axid afber recoidiag fb.e evidence of fhe parties dismissed fhe suit of the plauitiffs holdiag that fhere was a partition iu the family vide Revenue Proceedmg No.S-A/-27/1978-79 dated 24.7.1979 aud in fbe said partition, Belmati Bai got fhe aforesaid lj3IA share aud then only she executed a sale deed ia favour ofdefendaatno.l. AImost aU the issues were decided agahist fh.e plam.tiffs. (7) AgaiDist fhe aforesaid judgiaent aud decree passed by the trial Court, the plaiatifFs filed au appeal before the lower appeUate Court in which the lower appeUate Court also disinissed ftieir appeal aad confirmed, fhe judgment and decree passed by fhe trial Court. Having lost iu both the courts below, the plaiattffs have filed this appeal before tlus Court. (8) Leanied couiisel for the appeUants subinits that fhe trial Court as weU. as the first appeUate Court erred ia law iu holdiiig ftiat fhere was partition fhrough ttie above revenue proceedings aad ia fh.e said partitioii, tb.e lauds were allotted in fhe share ofSintBebiiati. He further submits that fhe findiKg •£-;..'. -^ • . • . • • . .. .- in relation to the authorily to execute a sale deed and the factum ofexecutionoftiiesaledeedis also erroneous. (9) I have gQne tluough itie judgment aad deciee passed by the two courts below aad have also perused the records. In. answer to issue no.2, fhe trial Court has niade^ a detailed i'S m: « -^t discussion in relation to partition inthe family and ultimately a positive finding has been recoided vide paragraphs 13 to 17 of fhe judginent fhat there was no partition ia the family prior to the institution of the aforesaid partition. proceeduigs befoic the Revenue Court and in the said partition proceedings only, an absolute partition took place in fhe family ia which atl fhe co- \ sharers of 3 branches received equal shares to fhe extent of l/3rd each. Consequently, Sint. Belmati also received l/3Td share in fhe said pardtion adiueasuring 8.92 acres aad fhen. only she executed a sale deed dated 1.6.1979 in favour of defendaut No. 1 Cbowkdai who is the widow of Charau Singh. The lower appellate Court has also recorded the same fiudings and confinued the judginent of the trial Court on this poiat. I do not find any inSrmity iu fhe aforesaid findiugs recorded by the two Courts below as leamed counsel for fhe appeUants failed to poiat out any perversily 'in ttie same. These concurrent findiags are upheld. (10) Now coining to fhe next poiiit raised by leamed Couasel for fhe appeUants regarduig fhe pleadihgs of old age and denial about execution of auy docuinent by SmtBehiiatl ia favour of defendaut uo. 1, fhis Court caa only say fhat the said chaUenge to fhe sale deed bn fhe said grounds by third party was not permissible under the law. In fhis regard, I would like to refer to a judgraent, though available as & short-note (Note no. 154) iu 1960 JSPLJ fSundertal—Vs-AnupKunweir Bcd) ia which it hias been held that '"an attack on the sale deed on account of •fraud andwantofconsideration, fhe grouiids are only available & du -5-- to a parfy to the sale deed alone aad fhe straager to transaction cannot attack the sale deed on fhese grounds''. Adxnittedly, fhe plaiattffs are not party to ttie transaction. Hence, they caimot challengefhe deed on the grouiid offi-aud. Therefore, this groiuid also fails aad the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below in relation to the vaMd execution ofthe sale deed are.alsoupheld. (11) It is important to miention fhis fact here fhat this Court is dealing wifh this matter in a second appeal ia which jurisdiction is limited to the provisions of Section 100 C.P.C. Hon'ble theApex Court bas held that under Section 100 of fhe Code of Civilfrocediire, ffae jurisdiction of the Court to entertaia a second appeal is coufined only to such appeals whicli involve a substantial question of^law aqd it does not confer aay jurisdiction on the High Court to interfere with the pure questions offactwhile exercisiag itsjurisdiction u/s 100 C.P.C (Please^ee^Roop^bwh IDeod} through LRs -Vs- Sam, Sln^h (Dead) through LRs reported m 12000) 3 SCC 708. It is also to be noted that the existence of substaatial questions of law is the sine qita non for the exercise of jurisdiction uiider thc amendea provisioas of Section 100 of tlle Code of Civil Procedure alid unless such questions are iavolved, fhe appeals are not to be entertained (Pleeise see Thifitiareifan and. others Vs. Sri Venuyopalcisweuny S. Koil atid others reported ia 12004) SSCC76S). <t^. ti- I1!;! -e' „ i (12) In the result, I do not find any reason to interfere with the coiicurrent findm.gs recorded by fhe two Courts below iu this case. Since uo substantifll questions of law are itLvolved in fhis case, fhis appeal has no force and ftie same is disiuissed at the adinission stage itself. No orders as to costs. Sd/- SuniS Kumar Sinha Judge Rao u: I. 1 lifij^°<