^^ ,lR8li ZN THS HIQH G0BRT ©»..injBiejikTffRgAT BIIASPKR (:G.©.) S.A. NO. /2804. ^>P8LL&HT 'BSBSNB&NT ^ s/1 Basharatl'i' s/o Banmafeh safatt, aged 55 years, oeeupation — &gE'isulture, a/o v.i.llage Khairteana fcala, patwari Halk» .N&.32. Tatasll KawaFdtia, Bist€. Rajiaaadgaoti, at present Bistriet Kablr<a]aam lO.Q.). V e r s u s BBSP.dNBBKITS : l.RamshaEdra. aged75 years yiaft^NTCTFS •: . ^v ^.'' . 1-' 1"'" , - S/o Blnaayal Sahu. )i"9i^^'S tf^l ^.•"Ty" ^-^s> ^t,B '^•.^^!- -^^ ^" ^"^'' <F A-'J^ ..•" ^yA :<i^'" ^ C>e^. '' / ^,2. RiMtin«ttl» Satan S/o Bindayal Safaa, ^agsa-78 yeacs. ; ': ^l^y^AaK^^iMn^S/®^Rantil.atl'' Sa.Sw^.'&ge' SS'yst |l|||>gaKft|^a^ya@Ba^^W^BE3.!I«igeIal'SaliH,!. ^ :;,^ ^i&i'^SQ ^ye^Cis.:: :..':' ; : ! 1 • . , ! A1.I oeeupStioin - Agriaaltare, R/e viilage;KhaiEbaaaKala. f. H.NO.3 2 , ft.X.eiFaie & Tahsll Kawaratia, Bistt. Rajnandgaoa »t presenfe Bistfe, KabiB'ahara. Anandi S/o Raralal Sahu, »gei3 48 yrs. ^' <' eeeapatien-AgF.teulfeare, B/e vl.ilage fcalpux- Kala, P.H.Mo.33,!R.I.eElFele& Talasil Kttwardta, Sistt. Rajnaadgaoa at presenfe Bisfet. Kabirdhani (S.S.) §• Bhadtu S/o Ranlal Sataa, aged 4®years poiMipat.i.on — agrlsult:are» R/e vll3.«ge Ktia&B-feana.kala, 'P.H.Mo.32.' B,.I»eaBEslfti •&: Tafasil.'KaMaffGiia,..BtstT.;l .at;:. :preseB€ Kabir|dham C®.©|i);j.,| a'-l'i,^ BUasP"' 8 9. / 2..- . : ': - : Badfa KuBwar Bal W/o Nand Slagb Sabu, aged 38 years, oeeupatlon — AgriauituaN R/o yai.liage iTetoadan, P.BE.Ne.33, R.2. eirsle & Tafasll Kawanafta, Bistrlct Rajiiaadgaon, afe present Kabirahan(©0) Biharl S/o Ramlal sahu, age^ 36 years ooeapafelpa - Agrieulture, R/o village Kbateteana ]EaI«i, P.H.No.32, a.I.Cl.relft, & Tahsil Kawacdha. la.stt.RajBandgaGin at present Blslfct. Kabl.rdham (ff.G.> ; State o£ ehbBfetistiarti Tbireugh s Colleetor, at gr'esent througb CelJ.eeter, KalairdHam (©.S.) ^fl;' !BBa^lSBIiafi|SiBNMfflKSiE^SiaNii3;ea/'-<8K- •GfS^e. 8 .^"•'.. HJGHCOURT OF CIgyj'TISGARH AT BILASPUR 'S.A. No. 377/2004 APPELLANT/DEFE^7DA^T Post for judgment on i?-l!)-2006 Sd/- Dfairendra Mishra Jiidge t..:: )*^. in<^CQTXT( C3BHATTISGARHATBILASPUR S.A. N0.3TS2004 ^APPELLANT/DEEENDANT:: Dashrath Versus RESPONDENTS/PEAINTIFES : Ramcbandra <S others. ShriH-V. Sharniacounsel ftortheappellant i JUDGMENT . ;• ! ::: [.. ' {fa-fQ-20QG) , ;: ;:i: . . The appeUant/defendant' J has pKfeffed flns ^p^under^ction'lO^ offfhei®oae^(3r®FrQgis8u^agamst^^|jffiggtei^^%'lds^ 9.?t.2004 ^ passedbylsanisdAdditi(M^^sti t^H^p%T@?E.^varaha|iffi^© 69-A/2002 wherebythe appeatprWn^iJbylnmagaimSte^ datei?'23,lI^9^pas8edfeyCivil]udge ssI'Kaward^m~GiMtSuitNo. 14- A/I994:te^SeeH'disnns^ aad th®(feeree m favour of^&^ eonfmned. l'''~.':::'.^^:.::';'''^ ;1" ' ;• '.: ": i ::: • . 2. The plamtiffi^ifieia^a^?.cii»|i.,,Buit^f6r declaration aad geg>etual i.injiuitetion' agamst ;the defetidants^.wiltt^;ffie^^a:veianent;lft^ descendants of Sumen. Suffl^f6^s4SIands ia viflages' KfiauBana There ,was partitioii 'bgtween ^fhe|s^ .ofFSiimen <some :4^-4^^^s .bwK. In ;the aboye.partilion Sumeri ^as atlaftsd|A silire; wlio^reside^^ttli.iJs^nda^al.: •It^was^ a^eedt&at shareanOBedto'SwMtf^woM^iBilieiate^ came .arto ppssessuMt'.over'tKe;:suittlan(l"^pe¥.l^^ca^:gartitian^ s^l^ft^^@^^^^Sl^ ^;1^^^P^^i^l^^^S^^S^i^^^ ^K^^gl^^^^^^i^^^^^ —3.- :,?Si»\.^ lands continued to be reeorded jointly 'iii the revenue records. Sumeri died iri the year 1956. After ffie death ofSumeri lands faBing in her share werfc allotted to Deendayal. Deendayal had fhree spns namelyRamlal, Ramnafh and Ramchand, theglaintifE As per partitioain ffie fataily:'7.46 acres of laiia situated iByiUage Tatp-feU m the share ofRaiula^ RaBmMh,^thefatherof4e^dant^.la^ plaintiff. Partition took place between the'suceessora of Deendayal. However, MulflubaLfhewifeofDeendayaldidnotclaMnhersliareoverfliesuitlaiid.After partitionthedefendant3land3^sbld^EliasraNo.l98areal.%acre 7.69acresofland'remained;mjoiDth61dmgandaspetpart^^ was aUotfed to Ramlal, die'T&ilfer defendant No. 1 obtamed 2.0'7'^acres oflanttwhereas the plamtiff'was(aUotted2.S3 acrespflandandsmcefhenfhepartiesarempossessionoffKeirres^ asdescribedmSehfi<Me-Gandmapappeadedtofl plauibThesaIedeeddated 26Mj9^'svassx6(^g&fty^ffl^iaeml|iSisffilNjpaffifei^^ defendantNb.3 iRainMM2a%uiSoEjge:^i3^^^;3jaiiadefeaBant^N^ minor rt that tmie, with respeet^-fhetlaiul a&neagtU-iag^iSiS't acre tHcludaii Khasi^ No/198 area 1.77 acres^x. P-14). QnAesame<iate^agra P-13^wassignedby,Samtal,Kanmafh,:Ramehand&a;andMulffi didnot'have;any sBate^ov^^t&eTemammgland.^ TaRiandstatedthattfie otfaCT share holders,ma^!igatfiti8n;^:.same{a^ agreemeHtofEx.^3;3.;l^nani^^^ sueeessof^(rf?deceaged!l3&^ deleted:fiom;to reyetn^ipagei^l'iwiili^ Taro vide; ordef .dated/31;8.:lSS7.ESi^tEe:aoider QfdKe TehsiIfllKUf wasltnentioned :\ ': '" ''"' ': :''''":.".^''•-^^?^^,^;.':^.^::^^ '''•;;'.^'.:'•v^::.''~^' •'••:::' ' './'^?i:—;'—'';':::^^::'..'":^^;.': tfaat ^since::ihe sbare.'.of DSsfi(|a^a|iB^^ertfseparated?ly/aiiom^ •:(iee(l of ]^.,P-l4'm:favoiu';Qf defetiaaats;|t^aa^3,.tli6ii^ fronirestofte.hpldmgare'del^t^Mwa^'fijrtheE^plga^ laDd:reeordedl:iif^feDames-o£BeudaHtslKaiid|3;deser^ 1 i s-: <^ already beeh partitioned between the plaintiff and the defeadants. However,the plaintiff inifiated the proceediugs for separation of his share in fhe revenue recorcte before the Tehsildar which was opposed by fhe defendant No.l, whereupon Ihe concemed Tehsildar vide onter dated 20. 1:992- Srected fhe parties to file a civil suit for partition and ih fhese circumstaaces fhe above syit was filed. Defendant No.l in his writtea statement denied fhe avennents made in tKe plaint and stated fhat the plaintifF does not haye any right pr interest over the suit land admeasurmg 7.69 acres as he had purchased fhe safne vide registered saledeeddated 26.6.1964 andjafterpurchasingthe saitel^partitionihas already beerieffected betweenfhe defendahts 1 and3spme 20 years back and since fhen fhey are in ttieir separafe possession bftUeir respeetive shares. The soit filed by fhe plaintiff is barred by limitation. B is also barred by Benami jTransaction Protiibition Aet, 1988. The plaiatiffis estoppedSom ehaU.eaging fhe sale desd. :fHBwevei5;)fli@i;defsndaiits^Haiifl|i|m;iffle^^ fheplaintifis.'' •' '''•^'''l^:S"'W¥lya%®lu^.ffl^ :;' 3. .• Ori the basis of fhe pteadings^ofiffiS Tespeistrwpai&s:'the:iissues were fi'amed andafterrecordiflgBieevidenceoffherespectrwparties,flie;tnateo^ decrced the suit by.recording a fiBdmg^that the sale deed dated 26.6.1964 was executsd wjttiout eonsideration:mfavour ofthe defendaiits.^ and Slwith.asole purpose ojfseparation ofnames'af' suece^oTs ofDeendayal iri the revenue fecords. andi:faeplamtil^islhiTOi^ssioi)|over:f|i&disp C attd the map '^eM^^Ssist^S^iip^as^S^aJs^S^e^^ portion ofIQia^No. 35^ area<:L6S^ee'!TllK:^ aot barred by Bensmi^ Transa&SoitlgKituIMon^^^^ aiuiyacebrdiagSy^^tiifi suit wa& decreed. ^fe appe^gEeferrediflgi^^ag^B^ identical:^dalgs.:'l:'1''/:':.::;'..:^;^'^':^:-:s:-^ i.^sSi-s'.KtEiiiJ ^;^^g^* 4. The^ instant second appeal;^Aas'Been?prefeiTerf by the appieUant on the .fbllowing-substantial/questions^oflaw:, ; .. • ,! . . (i) Whsllier the iSamed 1st appellate Court etied^m upiioldmg fhe decree bf declaratioii ofsuk without seeking relief for^cancellation offhe sale deed brwithout the deelaration as the sale deed was not ^bindmgy , 1". •:•'.:•• . • , : • •.:;:, : : -' (ii) Whetfaer botfa the'leamed caurts bslow wrongly^M bemgapartytottlie3aIedeed,thjeplamt)fi^sp(mdent^W estioppedfr0ntcliaUengmg;fhe<leed? • i , (iii) Whether both fhe leamed courts belowwTonglyheld ttiat flie suit wasriottiarredbviimitation? . ^; ^5.\:;l::gI^amedi|;ouasels dlSjaBBsUariiiSuitu^ Ex. P-14 .efieded by-tKe fan^;fflemt^|gn8ifaiiow^^^iuiants'^ respeet to the swtproperty, it was'not o^ir&r-tUe'plaiDtffi^elamisy declaration :arid perpetual mjlmetion<v?ithoia »prayer^ cancellafion ffiEifae sale deedofExF-14.'1 ;1 . ;...:.::' .'";': ••;.•- . '• . 1 ;^',:' .|^,;\:: ::~ 6. Bofli the eourts below after anah'zifiellw doeuments ayailabfc on^reedrd and tto st^ements pflfa&respeetiyeparties^isvetecQrdeda coacun-eiit^Gafling pf fact that a conjoint reading of doeinnent?o£3:!x.P-t4atid fhe agregmfintiExiP-t3 fl wouldjbe cleaE.that tiie^ al)ove4<}ocumeats;^were exsccted wiflMie'jpiuipose bf separationofnamesofsuccsssors^Dea^i^^^fi^to^ •i ' '::; ';: : • .: • :::'*'''':::^!'.- '.::-." • K':: : : ^S';» ; 'K.1..-.:..'?1 samevrasancinunalsal&^ea^BgffiDiitvi^idelation.^.1 ' x @6% '' . l: 1. ; ;In viewbf ffie^above'fiOHGun^!^^ Gourtelielow Ihfs^ourt is'»fiftleTtaBw-fliat:a:t• as;:DOt;iieee8sar5';^E^:ielp}aai!:iB? g; •pTa^:^^MKenation:offhe::saK^^ffi,1fis}|8ale^£dW^questi6n;iT^:l^ Wf^im. K h • S^^^liteJS^^^^^Si^ :&.^'-s.f-&SSS'^^Ss^S'^^ :e':~5^ s" -^ acted upon and the, same was exeeuted.witli tfae lunited purpose ofcorrection m therevenuepapersasperthedral-partition.,' ^ So far as the^second substaafial'question oflaw proposed byfhe.appeUatlt is concemed, bofli tiie Courtffbelowliaver orded,ac(mcutTentfiin^ fhat <tocument 6fEx<P-14 was a.nOaua.alisaKideed wifhout any:cbiisiyeratiori arul fhe sante was non est. A fitidiag has also been recorded that as^per the oral partition effected between fhe ^cesscirs:,;pf DeeHdayal^^lfae. plalnfiff .is m . posssasicin overifae smt laD<i<tesci%ed'm schedute G aad^^^^ pf plaintifE Being e^pped feiit challengiag the^^^s deed ofEx P-I'f does not anse. . :' :.': :..'' :•.-•..'";': : :.•: :^. :. •" 9. So fw as the 3rf^stantiat qi^stum^oFlawpro^ concemed, fhe cause of tetion arose to the'plaintiff enly A separatiDn of his name m-fhe Teveiuie; record miucb was. ofipdseS;by defeBdantit'M;. ^I aaa'^or^gl}^|^ab0iieet^gil'elfflilj3a^^ adjudica[ted'frQm'1fae';ciyfl:eouEt'«i^^siu|^^ in the year 1992 when his elaim over 1:he:]Suit^land was 3i8pu1^d;t>y flie sSefendant^ Nb.I'l.^m^ afe^said'eircumstanrcs botB^lhe courte belo fUe:siutW:'MwithMii^ation. •:;;-.•' •.;;''^ • l':7 .. : ;'!.?". ,.;'; 10. In (be result^ suBstantM^guestix^Qflaw as5rc)pose<|ibythe appeUautu^ immlvedmthisappgaLiQradjudicaMtm^iShusSheappeaI Uabte t6 be disnassed an3 l&e sat^ lis^^cojid^ stageitsetf. Sd/- ! OHDtENDRA MBHRAj -..^f 'sa';"«-s;'is. v^vSS ai ^