/ IN THE HIGH 5; ~ COURT CHHATTISGARH OF JUDICATURE AT BIMgUg \ , \ s.A. No. £5 Lawn iLMmQ AP LLANT : /Manaro v Bai, aged about 50 years. W/o. Magan Ram Gond> Occupation Agriculturist R/o. Bhediya Tahsil Bhanupratappur, Distt. Kanker tdVERSUS v; i \\ REsmNDENTs \ FENDANTs g //1a/3 S/o Dhirpal, Ranjan aged Gond about 55 years y ' X/I‘BK. (P/ W/o. Lakhani Darzen Bai ,aged Gond, about 40 years / .I.’ x ‘é-Q' ;::’é§,\~0E/1 )Sa‘ /‘ / / am Lakhmu, aged about 32 years S/o. Dhirpa1 /J/d. {)/ Kala Bal, aged about 28 years W/o. Dasrath /1e 9/ Kalaram , aged about 25 years S/o. Dhirpal All R/o‘ Village Dongarkatta, Tahsil ..... ( Bhanupratappur, District Kanker State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector DistriCJ/Kanker (C.G.) 4/ ' I .- f; / APPELLMQW‘ a ‘a’ Ra€§haraa ageé abcut in, yeam 3/9 ié‘agan £3?! 1 {h} Swarm ageaa ahout 3a years W9 Fiaganraa x Kc§ $13k. Mésa §ai iiiéow of 8ajazan Q. {&) Bal'aulal agerl about 23 years $/a ka§axa 1 (e) 3arjuxm ageé abcut at) years $12) lajarw J1 {a §anshi1a1 agee! mat 18 years $/c kajaran All $e$werm af Village Ihe‘éiya gahsil mampacatagpuz Matt. Eame: 1 {£53 $mt. 3ajob£ age§ abant 4g yeaw ‘Wa Naganmn w/o'sonaxaa R/o ‘Vnl age ‘Ehiigarkattm liatt. Kan‘karl a (m smt. Shayaahati ageg about 35 yeats @h Eaganrw W/a $axjutan R/b Vin age mmnbeaa §istt. Kénker. «Meg w aYdQY QK/m/w ,. 7// \0'Sr \W) 1011 n9» ¢ \ XI—HC-78 EW,W€;W’ S‘ZQ‘ND‘ig m3 o WW o.o"o.oo oo.oo o. E 200 mam mmm mm (W) mwm 33.61206? : Shri Praka3h Tiwari, coL Shri Viahnu Koshta, com Shri GD. Wawmni, Dy. € the application under Order 22 E of 200$, for oondonation of deiay in ‘s‘iiing ‘ aiwm N rse! for respondents 1-b to ’i~e. 3.A. for the State/responcreni No.2. Heard on LA. No.321’8 ‘ Nat opposed. The appiicaiion is ailowe oi. and the de§ay in fiiing the appiica’rion is condoned. N0. 1-a Dhirpal who expi; 2006, for deieting ’r'ne name of respondent representatives of deceased D 0.1-a Dhripai be deleted from the cause— titie. Heard on LA. No.240 of red on 27.03.2005. Since the regal that the mame of respondent N wripa} are already on record, it §s prayed Not opposed. The appiication is allowec dele‘ied from the cause—titie. 2006, for taking documents‘on record. eard/on LA. No.3217 of Not opposed. The appiioation’ is ailowed nsel for {he appenanrs. Quie 2 of CPC. l, Name of reopondent No.1-a Dhripal be and ’ihe documents are taken on record.[/V P.T.O . XI—HC—78 WW, Wig,W Wm MMLSL 2W3 200 WWW mmmW) WW§WW‘ m‘mm mwm F21 ( . '%;s?%man%¥¥ ‘ " " Heard en admissian. The appeiiani’—phiniiff irysiiiui'ed Civii Suit NQBO-N‘i $94 be‘hm ihe Civil Judge, C2ass-§§, Bhanuprafappar for deciaz'aiion of title and possassion on ihe ground that hey father Tibhu had executed a Wm in her favour Wde EXFH. it is mi dissuted ihai on the daie of suit ihe u'efewan‘t was in posse$si0n of the suit lands‘ Learned Givéi Judgge, Cia$s—l3 after cansideri‘ng ihe aSsemons mad‘E by the p§aini§ff in her testimony iha‘t Tibhu haci put her in possessian of 4;? e suit §ands on exewi‘icn of the dowmem and the manner 'm which EXP/W1 was cauched, rewarded a $inc’xing that the demf‘aent was m fact a gifm‘ ”sad execuiw by Tibhu ano‘f couid mt be construed as a Wm. S§nce tha document was not ragisfxareé‘ the suitfor deciaration of We was dism‘ssed on ihat count. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.30—Afi994‘ the piaintiif preferred Civii Appeai No.4-A 2000 before the First Additional District Judge, Kanker. The First Appeiiate Couri aiso affirmed the finding recorded by rhe learned Civil Judge, Class-” that document EXP/i wa5 not a wiii and was an unregis:ered girl-deed. On this premise, the first appeai was eise dismissed. XI—HC—78 ,WWWW g‘A(po.?_S'L 1&03 Was-uh; ....... . \ 200 WW<W> WEHW WWW WW§WW gammm am1§mm Shri Prakash Tiwari, {earmd counsel appearing for the appeiiants piaced reliance 0n Ramabai §admakar Pam (dead) by LRe and oiher3, V. Rukminibai Vishnu Venkhande and others reported in Am 2003 SQ 3109 and $mt. Framed Kumari Bhatia V. 0m Prakash Bhatia anci Gizhers reported in AIR W80 SC 4436 , in support 0f his contentior: that f the intention 0f Tibhu in executing the document EXP/1 ought to have been borne in mind and since it was intended that the piaintiff couid get the iand mutated in her name on the death of Tibhu , the document cught ’co have been construed as a wiil and in this manner the finding recorded by both the Courts bekow is erroneous and raises a substantiai question of iaw in this appeal as to whet? er both the Courts below have erred in“ recoreting a finding that the document EXP/’1 is an unregistered gift-deed and not a will. “EF l have heard learned coensei for the parties and perused the document Ex.P/1 as also the testimony of plaintiff-Manaro Bat and the evidence ted by the parties. Manero Bai admitted in her cross—examinatien that at the time of execution of the document Tibhu had delivered possession of the suit lands to her. lt is also pertinent to note that in the Namantaran Panji ExD—ll the na ne of Manaro Bai was mutated overJthe / / (/, XI—HC-78 3am, Wang, Farmagt SrA-«NnvLSL 1°03 mmo.oo‘oo.¢q.o ......... 200 WW(W) WW§WM WWW “L‘T ‘ %mm 7 $uit lands as an heir of TibhL and no? on the basis cf the dacumen‘i‘ EXPH‘ Manaro Bai has msa admiited in her mossuexaminaion that in revenue proceedings the said C‘ocument EXP/1 wee found to be a forged document. m my considered inion‘ the mere fact that vide Ex.F’/1 Tibhu had expressed his intention th t after hie death Manaro Bai Gourd get her name mutated over the suit and would by itself, not be sufficient to construe the document as a wi . Menaro Bai admitted in her examination- i in-chief that her name was mut ted Over the suit tends by Tibhu during his iife time. This compieteiy nuiies the intention of Tibhu to bequeath the suit iands to Manaro Bai after s death. The possession of the suit lands was delivered by Tibhu to M naro Bat at the time of executien ef the document white expressing a c ear intention 0t executing a gift in favour of Manaro Bat. The document was therefore, rightiy construed as an unregistered dooument of gift nd not a wilt. The doeument EXPH is an undated document. Learned oounsei for the appellants has also not been able to furnish the date of de' th of Tibhu so as to disoiose whether‘the appeilant had tiledthis suit so n thereafter for deciaration of titie over the suit property. Manaro Bat admitted that after iosing in revenue proceedings from the Court of Tahsiidar up to the Court of Commissioner is of document EXP/1. She aiso admitted t, she had filed the suit on the b o,r i‘i i a XI-HC-78 A300 Z; Wm¢¢§ooo§oooo .oooo... WW(W) '2. L~03 ‘ 200 .i‘c