£] ,,. \«c IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT 3ILA3PUR C.G. 3ECOND APPEAL No. l<^..\./.2@84 .0.1^. .,;.^§?^> APPELLANT/PLAINTIN'S i 1} Sajendra Kumar S/o I.'arasraii; aged / ' 36'yrs. » /.} Kavin^ra Kumar S/o Pyarelal agee 35 yrs. <// ..^ ...^ ^)& /••\^y </y' ^^:. <^> -3) Pyarelal S/o Jatiram a§ed 60 yrs. 4) Darasram S/o Jatirafn agea 57 yrs. All caste Satnami R/o Village Pachri Tahsil Pamgarh Disttrict Janj§ir Champa (C.G.):: Versu, REoPQNDENTS/DEFENDENTS 1) Gangbai W/o Ganesh Caste Satnami 32 years. ><2) Konda S/o Not known caste Satnami aged 6@ yrs. 2X Ql & ©2respectively is R/o village Kotmi ,Sonar< Tehsil Janjgir. 3) Amritbai W/o San'tosh, Cgste Satnami aged 52 years R/o village Bhadaura, o •Ihana Masturi, Tehsil Bilaspur. 4} Jyotish-s/o Laldas^ Caste Satnami / aged 47 .years. 5) Devcharan S/o Hiralal, Caste Satn,£Lffii aged 47 years. L»s y-ys. '•"^.i;';^£~;t 6) Rotait Kumar S/o Puran '13 'yro-. •i-l-.^in--^1 /r\ Li ^hs.jy—a§6&-^sj^s. ^i-v^ 'srjpw ^gy'p?-?"'^,.ny ^"""ca'ste' -3at5ami.' •"-l-"<" 3S: Respectively from 04 to @6 all are R/o village Pachri Tehsil Janjgir. 7) Smt. Shiyabai w/o Pardesi, a§'ed 36 yrs» Caste Satnami* S./Q Navapara (Levai) Tehsil Janjgir District Janjgir. 8) smt. Phaghai N/o Tijram» aged 38 yrs casts satnami a/o Amartal* Tehsil Janjgl'r Digtrict Janjgir. ty 3 contel..,;;.. ^^•—•S^^''^^s-swvswsKwiy^^^.S^SWUW:is.vMt BiEfariiB^;t^i-M: IN THE HIGH COURT OE JUDICATURE AT BILAgPUR G.G. SECOND APPEAL N0. tf. :\./.2©84 -^?J? APPEI.LMT/PLAINTIFJPS i ,1) Rajeniara Kumar S/o 'Harasram aaea • / 35 y,rs» ^2) S.avinSra Kutnar S/o Pyarslal asec. 35 yrs. >e-' Avrt: ft? '.-•'{ ..^ r^"- ^ y^y ^•'A^' ^< ye w <?-• ^ 3) Pyarelal S/o Jatiraii ased 68 yrs. 4) Darasram S/o Jatiram a§ed 57 yrs. ,' All caste Satnami R/o Village Pachri lahsil Pamgarh Disttrict Janjgir Champa (C.G.): y_ei:sys. REoPONDE TS/DEF@.ID_ENTS ,1) Gandba-i. W/o Ganesh Caste Satnami ^ Aged 32 years. 2) Kon^a S/o Not toown caste Satnami agea 66 yrs. l^ ©1& ©2, respectively is R/o village Katmi Sonar, Tehsil Janjgir. 3) Amritbai W/o Santosh» Gaste Satnami aged 52 years R/o villags 31iadaura> Thana Masturi, Tehsil -Bilaspur. 4) Jyotish S/o Laldas< Caste Satnami .__:. .^ifS-Q^S. .A_l. ...szoL-a .r-o—-..—..— ..-.—.—. ..—- .^'-itAR t'ii '^ ,-•• / 'F M or are A/e> v.Llj-ag'e Pacnn Tehsil Janjgir. 7) Snt. Shiyabai ~W'/o Pardesi, sgea 36 yrs» Caste Satnami* R/o Navapara (Levai) Tehgil Janjgir Digtrict Janjgir. 8) Smt. Phagiaai N/o Tijram, aged 38 yrs 'C casts satnami R/o Amarfeal, Tehsil Janjglr District Janjgir. / ' :Y| a i: r - contd..2.• T ^;g"n r*~~' ; 1E^S HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar lyiishra >ealNo.124of20) ,»!B8g)WW Rajendra Kumar and others versus Gandbai and others Postfor 2-1-01-2010 Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ~ •y ^i~ c^m^- "/fy ,,^;!3aaa,>, 8 •WSS--^ j .3' / ";te.-,:'''^' fc^fd-.W Sinale Bench: Hon'bie Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishrs versus Rajendra Kumar and others Gandbai and others Shri Bharaf Rajput, counsei for the ;hri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Pane No.10. lants. iwyer for the State/respondent Second Appeal under Section 1 00 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Passed on ^-1^'January, 2010) The unsuccessful pialntiffs in both the Courts below have preferred the present second suit Tor declaratlon of joint defendants No.1 to 3 have chalienaina She dismissal of their ?, as also for declarE ht in the property and a!so for declaration of the order of mutation dated 30-11-1987 and the order passed by Naib-Tahsildar, Pamgarh on 4-2-1988 as null and void and the sale-deed executed by defendants No.1 to 3 in favour of defendants No.4 to 6 also as null and void. The plaintiffs had also f prayed for a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining - ^-- them from interfering m their posssssion in the suit land. . 2. . Aceording to the piaintiffs, the suit land described in Schedule 'A' with the ptelnt area 14.70 acres. situated at Vitlage Pachri, Tahsii Pamgarh v/as jointly recorded in the names of Pyarelal, Darasram, •^ . fVlangtin and Hatharin, who were the successors sn interest of common ^AfW'' ^'ff^ ;) ^.ir'B8«!i iiliiti.^l z- ancestor Jatiram. The said Hatharin was living with the plaintiffs' father, as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the plaint. She executed a will Jated 4-2-1986 (Ex.P-1), which was notarized on 5-2-1986 sequeathing her share In the property to plaintiffs No.1, Rajendra and No.2, Ravindra. The plalntiffs are in possession of the property after the death of Hatharin, however, She Revenue Inspector, without hearing the plaintiffe ordered on 30-11-1987 for mutation ofthe names of defendants No.1 to 3 in She suit property. The said defendants moved an application before the Naib-Tahsildar, Pamgarh, who, vide order dated 4-2-1988, directed that the names ofdefendants No.1 to 3 be enSered on 7.36 acres of !and. Some parts of these lands have been so'd by defendants No.1 to 3 to defendants No.4 to 6, as mentjoned in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the ptaint. Thus, according to the plaintiffs, there being a cloud on their title, they preferred the suit. 3. Defendants No.1, 4, 5 and 6 filed common written statement and stated that there was a partition between Hatharin and other !and holders about 20 years back from the date of the filing of the suit and that the said Hatharin has not executed any will. After death of Hatharin, the names ofdefendants No.1 to 3 were mutated as her legal heirs. Hatharin used to reside with her daughter defendant No.1 in ^ whose fax'our she executed a power of attorney/wil!. Mutation of names of defendants No.1 to 3 was result of mutual settlement and that defendants No.4 to 6 are bona Me purchasers from the share betonging to.defendants No.1 to 3. 4. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, has finding that the plaintiffs have not been able to prove due SW I; i|Iy!'B3 •/"!~^ ^M:< B !IWj.»s:B 3- execution of the will dated 4-2-1986 (Ex.P-1). The trial Court has specificaity recorded the cireumstances, like divesting the shares of laughters by Hatharin, non-registration of the wili, non-examination of the writer of the wi!l, non-production of the original copy of the will as the will Ex. P-1 is a carbon copy etc., to hold that the plaintiffs have not been able to prove the genuineness of the wil!. After finding that defendants No.4 to 8 are bona fide purehasers of some parts of th< land by registered sale-deed'executed by defendants No.1 to 3 after rriutation of their names, the trial Court found the said defendants No.4 to 6 as bona We purchasers. Since the exscution of the witi and its genuineness was doubted, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. ie f'rsl appellate Court, after a detailed discussion of the evidence availabie on record, has affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the first appeal. 6. The failure of the piaintiffs to prove the genuineness of the alleged wj!l (Ex. P-1) is a has also found that in t )ure finding of Tact. The first appetiate Court absence of the original wll!, having bes duced and proved by the plaintiffs, its execution and not proved. >S !S 'h.is Court does not find any substantial question of taw arising in ^p^l fnr rifii ^ ^~^^i EUE5 ? 8. The second app§al fails and is hereby dismissed idmi'ssion stas Sdl- prashant Kumar Mishra Judge wj.|a|!'?]^a ^w^>