IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Second Appeal No./74^J) /2009 Sinflfe Bencfl APPELLANTS DEFENDENTS N0. 3 TO 8 : ^ ^ ^- ^..'•"fe^ ^'^s^"" ^*' 6. /'" Nota Ram, S/o Pati Ram Sahu,aged about 27 years, Bhupat Ram, S/o Pati Ram Sahu, aged about 25 years, Kaushal Ram, S/o Pati Ram Sahu, aged about 23 years, Dharam Singh, S/o Radheshy&m Sahu, aged about 35 years, Kholu Ram, S/o Sukalu Ram Sahu, aged about 26 years, Urmila Bai, W/o Jeewan Lal Sahu, aged about 40 years, All R/o Village Dhobanpuri, Tahsil Gurur, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT DEFENDENT N0. I RESPONDENT DEFENDENTN0.2 f ^ RESPONDENT DEFENDENTN0.9-A Kunwar Singh, S/o Dhirpal Mahar, aged about 52 years, (Deceased Defendant No. 1 Dharmu S/o Alal^h Ram deleated) Videshi Ram, S/o Dharmu Mahar, aged about 33 years, KaluRam,S/oDhami^iMahar,ag€d about 23 years, A1I R/o ViIIage Dhobanpuri, Tahsil Gumr, Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Sonu Rm died, through Legal Representative) Meghu Ram, S/o Sonu Ram Mahar, aged about 41 years, R/o Village Dhobanpuri, Tahsil Gurur, Distt. Durg (C.G.) <^^ rt^^--- RESPONDENT DEFENDENTN0.9-B RESPONDENT DEFENDENTNO. 10 6. Smt. Ahilya Bai, W/o Sonau Ram, D/o Sonu Ram, aged about 36 years, R/o Village Kochera, Post Dhaleli, Tahsil Gumr, Distt. Durg (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Durg. SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION r00 OF CW1L PROCEDURE CODE. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Second Appeal No.369 of 2009 Nota Ram and others versus Kunwar Singh and others ORDER ^ Postfor &4-02-2010 Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge -f). ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Second Appeal No.369 of 2009 Appellants ResDondents versus Nota Ram and others Kunwar Singh and others Present: Shri Ravindra Agrawal, counsel for the appellants. Shri P.P.Sahu,counsel for respondents No.1, 4 and 5. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.6. None appears for respondents No.2 and 3. SecondADDeal underSection 100 ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure ORDER (Passed ont>4-^ February. 2010) The appellants/defendants No.3 to 8 have preferred this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, which has a!lowed the flrst appeal (CMI Appeal No.82-A/2007) preferred by respondent No.l/plaintiff and has decreed the sujt. 2. The plajntiff Kunwar Singh had preferred the suit (Civil Suit No.217-A/1998) for dedaration of his title, possession, permanent injunction as also for dedaratjon ofthe sale-deeds Ex.D-9to D-12 as null and vojd. !t was the case of the plaintiff that the suit land belonged to Manrakhan, son of Dhirpal. Manrakhan died jssueless. The plaintiff Kunwar Singh is the brother of Manrakhan, however, the defendants Dharmu, VJdeshI and Kaluram, jn collusion with the Revenue Jnspector, fl L: -2-- ^ "got mutatedtheirnameson 7-8-1985, against which the plaintiff preferred appeal before the Sub-DJvisional Officer, Balod and the matter was remanded. The Tahsildar passed an order on 30-6-1989 for mutating the name of the plaintiff, however, the said order was set aside in appea! upto the Board of Revenye. During pendency of the dispute before the revenue Courts, the defendants Dharmu, Videshi and Kaluram sold the suit !ahd jn favour of defendants No.3 to 8 by registered saJe-deedsdated 6-1-1992, 8-1-1992, 28-10-1992 and 24- 11-1992 and thereafter the said defendants have djspossessed the plaintiff, According to the plaintiff,the suit land is ancestral property and after death of Manrakhan issuejess, he is entitled to succeed the property and Dharmu was never adopted by Sonarinbai, wife of Manrakhan, therefore, the said Dharmu has no interest in the suit property. 3. The defendants stated that the plaintiff has another brother Sonuram and the suit land was the self-acquired property of JVIanrakhan. His widow Sonarinbai had adopted Dharmu aft6r death of Manrakhan and, therefore, his name and the names of his sons Videshjram and Kaluram were recorded along with Sonarinbai with the consent of Sonarinbai. 4. The trial Court dismissed the suit after holding that the suit land 1s not ancestral property, the suit land does not belong to the plaintiff, the sale-deeds are not IIIega! and the suit is barred by limitation. 5. On appea! by the plaintiff, the learned first appelja<;e Court, by the impugned judgment and decree, has alJowed the appea!. The ^^ .^ w / '?'Nfe^^1 (:.:. learned appellate Court, on careful appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence on record, has recorded a finding that the suit land was ancestral property. It has also been found that Dharmu was never adopted by Manrakhan or Sonarinbai ?nd that mere entry of Dharmu's name in the revenue records would not confer any title on hjm or his sons. The appellate Court has observed that regarding adoption of Dharmu, there is no pleading or proof by the defendants and that merely because Dharmu was residing with Sonarinbai from childhood, a presumption of his adoption would not arise unless the tegal requirement of a valid adoption in accordance with the Hindu Adoptjons and Maintenance Act, 1956is proved by the person who claims to have been adopted. The first appellate Court decreed the suit after finding that the plaintiff.being the brother of Manrakhan, is entitled to succeed the suit iand along with another brother of Manrakhan, namely, Sonuram. 6. On perusa! of the record, especially the pleadings and the statements ofthe parties, thlsCourt finds that the findmgs recorded by the first appeilate Court are well-reasoned and are born out of correct appreclation ofthe evidence on record. The findings that the suit land was ancestral property, Dharmu was not adopted by Sonarinbai and the sale-deeds executed by the defendants Dharmu and his sons Videshiram and Kaluram are illegal as they have no valid titie for djsposal, are findjngs of fact. The appellate Court has found that the cause ofaction arose OTT30-6-1989, 24-9-1992, 8-1-1992, 24-11-1992, 28-10-1992, 15-6-1996 and 25-4-1996 when the sale-deeds were executed, therefore, the suit fiied on 26-4-1996 is within Eimitation. The 'A- said finding is Inaccordance with !aw. !n view of the evidence on record, the findings do not appear to be perverse. 7. There being no substantial question of law arising for determination in this second appeal, the second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^-