^^%^.^-"" >.^°^A^ ^?4 ',if"a A»W° BEFORE THE HON^BLE HIGH COtIRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S<ngl& Bencfr Second Appeal No. Sof Of2006. APPELLANT DEFENDANT RESPONDENT PLAINTIFF :- Smt. Ishwari Dewangan, wife ofLate Om Prakash Dewangan, resident ofHouse No. 99, SikshakNagar, Durg (Chhattisgarh). V E R S U S :- Smt. Sushila Bai, wife ofLate Nohar Singh Dewangan, aged about 65 years, resident of L.I.G. 75, Rajendra Prasad Nagar, Behind Niharika Talkies, Korba, District Korba (C.G.). \^^ {m-.-.-.. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE x (Claim in appeal valued at Rs. IOOO/- and c.f paid at Rs. 100/- only) XI-HC-78 W^T^T^icb ^TTW^T^h^ich ^ *11*1<»TTS.n+lich 3:^'r«i<iid<4,y>Tf1'y^i6, fs|dl^^< •^* • •*'*"4 ^.* •V»• •'•• • • • • • ^ 200 < 3TT^?T 'T^T ('{di^sl^SSF) ?^Ta[K^cr3TT^T 25.09.2006 Shri Pankaj Agrawal, lean Heard on admission. The appeiIanVdefendant of the Code of Civii Procedure a dated 4.5.2006 passed in Civ| District Judge (FTC), Durg, preferred by the appei!anfc/defo|ndant dated 5.12.2002 passed by Fir^t No. 51-A/01, has been dismissel: This appeai has been pr| foliowing substantiai questions o| aniount of father ^l^f^^l^ IRTRoff ^T te^t <(^1<-<ll< ^3Tf^T3:TT^T ^ied counsel for the appeiianVdefendant. ^ias preferred this second appea! u/s 100 ^ainst the impugned judgment and decree Appea! No. 2-A/05 by 11th Additional Distt-Durg (C.G.) whereby the appea! against the judgment and decree Civil Judge, CIass-Ii, Durg in CivH Sujt ^. ^ferred by the appeliant/defendant on the fiaw; A. SPWhether the findi^g of the seif acquired property is against the evldence avaijabie on record because it has come in evidence that it ^as purchased from the death benefjts jn iaw, as ciear from para 11 of the statement of plaintjff/respondent herself?" XI-HC-78 ^n^T^T^Jcb ^T^TW \ H1WTT Sb*1|cb 7S[ ^I^ICl^, ^Tn<11|(oy Rcrll^^< €^ft'3o / ^ 200 € (?T^cb (^qI^q^T) B^TTW ^rficT W^T B. 'Whether the fin(|iing as to self acquired or joint property can be determined S^y seeing the source of nucieus oniy and ^ent has faiied to prove that she has income property alone, it cannot be said that c^nnot get property of father, as admitted in st^tement of piaintiff/respondent herseif?" fin{jings of the courts beiow are pen/erse and since the respont: to purchase th4 undivided son c. para 11 ofthe •Whether the illegal?" The plaintiff/responder|t mandatory injunction with th^ Shikshaknagar, Durg is her se| is her daughter-in-iaw who is| has no right to induct any per^ piaintiff is entitied to recover being recovered by the defen^ant The defendant denied <=t)i^f<i41ri wrat* ^* te^ ^RTK ^3Tf^T3^T fi!ed a suit for deciaration of tltie and averment that the suit house situated In f acquired property, the defendanVappeliant in possession of the suit property and she >on as a tenant in the suit premises and the ^he rent of Rs. 1 ,000/- per month which Is frorn the tenant. the averments of the piaint and stated that the suit house as also the pi^ts situated at Danganiya, Raipur, Girdhari Nagar, Durg were not purch^sed from the income of th.e piaintiff and Sheshnarayan whereas th^ house purchased in the name of XI-HC-78 W^T^T^TT^ cT8TT3n^T$b^[eb HTRdT ^*TT^t 3^T^ii^i<n^, ^Tn<i^<o, [sKrii^y • • •'•• • • • • •^•"•^*• • • • • • ^ 200^ @ 3Tr^T^R^?(^c<t^q^) ^rrw ^f?cf ^TI^T -a^ Sheshnarayan was purchased <=bl^l^l41<ri WT^ff fffe^ <(^^1< ^^rf^TW^T Ifrom the income of defendant and as such the defendant is entitied for 1/^ share each sn the above propertjes and the same are properties beJong|ing to the josnt family. On the basis of pieadinj decreed the suit by recording] Shikshaknagar, Durg is the sel] sltuated at vijiage Amlideeh defendant is entitied for 1/3rd sil the defendant in their respectiv| the necessary parties since th| pertains to the property beior arrayed as a party in the suit. was partiy decreed by the trial "it is deciared that the the se!f acquired properly of th| the same to any person or to ^ her chiidren are entitied for 1/g at viiiage - Bhatagaon, Amlide| are also entitied to get 1/3rd shj ^s of the respective parties, the trial Court a findlng that the suit house situated at acquired property of the plaintlfr, the !and |is the property of joint family/and the |are over the said property, the piaintiff and ^ cJaim and counterclaim have partiyjoined ^ counterciaim preferred by the defendant Iging to Sheshnarayan, he has not been lAccordingly, the suit and the countercialrn (pourt in the foilov^ng terms; touse situated at Shikshaknagar, Durg, is p piaintjff and oniy she is entltled to iet out let the same vacated. The defendant and I share over the agriculturai land situated ^h Patan. The defendant and her chjidren ^re of the sale proceeds obtained from the XI-HC-78 3TI^T ^)T R^icb cTSTTCT^Tsh^icb ^. \ *11<4^11 «>+1|Ct» T^f -^NKrt^, ^Tfl<M4t<o, f®l<rtl^^< , S-^' 3^/ ^200^ 3TT^?T'q^R (^qi^q^) ?;RTTW ^f^T W^T <a~<ct - saie of the house situated atl parties to bear their own costs The appeal preferred b1 dismissed bythe learned iowet| |vi!lage Bhatagaon, Amiideeh Patan. The bfthesujt. \/ the appellant/defendant has been further appeilate Court with Identica! finding. Learned counsel for thj have wrongly arrived at the seif acquired propei-ty of th^ admission ofthe piaintiff hersej oath. It is further argued that adequate income to purchase her admission the Courts bei<t with respect to the property siU reasons the findings of both Thus, the above proposed adjudicatlon of this appeai. ct)i^f^i41^ Hi^<nT^fe^t<f^^i< ^3Tf^1T3TI^T appetiant submits that the Courts beiow c4nclusion that the property in questlon was piaintiff and this flnding is against the made in paragraph 11 of her statement on Ihe plaintiff has failed to prove that she has |:he property alon.e and therefore, in view of |)W v^ere not justified in decreeing her suit lated at Shlkshaknagar, Durg and for these 1|he Courts below are peiverse and lllegai. substantiai questions of iaw arise for 1 have heard learned co|jnsei for the appeiianVdefendant and have perused the materia! avaiia^ie on record induding the impugned judgments ofthe Courts beiow.] P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^T^T^T^N? cTSTT 3TRST ^TT^ ^ ^ y^ -K ^ m^r^n »»Hi<sb 3^T ^l^lcn^, ^Tf1<HII<o, fstcrtK-l^ ^j^ . ,<^. »v.»r-»» .'......»,^ 200 (o STT^T 1q?ra7(^Gii^q^) B^cTTWlcrfN'^TI^T ^^"^ The Courts beiow afterl by the respective parties hav^ in question was purchased by| and she deposited the installr^ the property in question was i^ reference of paragraph 11 of t| to the appeiiant/defendant as ^ is rio-such admission as has b the argument advanced by COL Therefore, i am of the| below by proper appreciation arrived at a concurrent findin^ house Is the seif acquired question of iaw as proposed a| is invoived for adjudication of t| In the resuit, the appea dismissed atthe admission <=bi^?<n41ri *4i^^T^teT:cfl'<f^<^i< ^3^T3TT^T marshaiing the evidence in detaii adduced arrived at the conciusion that the property the piaintiff under hire purchase agreement ents against the purchase and accordingiy, e seif acquired property ofthe piaintiff. The ie piaintiff's statement on oath is of no help ifter perusing the same it is found that there een urged in the memo ofappeai as aiso in nse! for the appe!iant/defendant. considered opinion thatboth the Courts |)fthe orai and documentary evidence have of fact that the property being residentia! pjroperty of the plaintiff and no substantial |)ove by counse! for the appeiSant/defendant |ils appeal. stafee being devoid of substance desen/es to be itself and it is accordingiy dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.