1 NAFR Reserved on : 28/11/2024 Delivered on : 28/04/2025 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 109 of 2006 Jairam S/o. Rupram Verma Aged about 24 years, R/o. Iraikhurd, PO Patewa, Tahsil and District – Rajnandgaon (CG) ... Appellant versus 1. Govind Ram S/o Ramnath Verma Aged about 56 years, R/o. Iraikhurd, Tehsil & District – Rajnandgaon (CG) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Collector, Rajnandgaon ... Respondents For Appellant : Shri C.K. Kesharwani and Shri Anupam Upadhyaya, Advocates For Respondent No.1 : Shri Parth Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) C A V Judgment For convenience the plaintiff would be referred to as the appellant and the defendant as the respondent. 2. This appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 21/02/2006 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon (for short ‘First Appellate Court’) in Civil Appeal No.14-A/2004 by which the judgment and decree passed by the 2nd Civil Judge, Class -II, 2 Rajnandgaon (for short ‘trial Court’) in civil suit No.137-A/2001 on 13/01/2004 was affirmed. 3. The appellant filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the strength of will deed dated 24/06/1983 in respect of the suit property i.e. khasra No.530 area 1.74 acre and a house situated at village – Iraikhurd, Tahsil and District – Rajnandgaon (for short ‘suit property’). The suit property is described in schedule -A and schedule B of the plaint. The admitted facts of the case is that the respondent No.1 and the appellant’s father Rupram Verma were the sons of late Ramnath. Late Ramnath and Ramshilabai were the children of late Amru who passed away prior to year 1950. 4. As per the averments in the plaint, partition of the property had already taken place during the lifetime of Ramnath and Ramshilabai. In the said partition, house constructed in 5 decimal and 1.74 acre of agricultural land situated at village– Iraikhurd were given to Ramshilabai. She was residing in the house and used to cultivate the land. The said properties were recorded in the name of Ramshilabai as bhumi swami in the revenue records. Respondent No.1 refused to take care of Ramshilabai being old. Appellant and his father took care of Ramshilabai in the old age till her lifetime. Being happy with that, Ramshilabai executed a registered will deed dated 24/06/1983 Ex.P/5 in respect of the suit property in favour of the appellant. Respondent No.1 did not cooperate in the last rites and rituals of Ramshilabai. The villagers and respondent No.1 were aware of execution of will deed since beginning but respondent No.1 never objected to that during life time of Ramshilabai. Even after decision taken in the meeting convened by the panchayat, respondent No.1 never gave any maintenance amount to Ramshilabai because of which, the appellant had to take care of her. Ramshilabai left her husband and was residing in Rajnandgaon and became 3 wealthy by doing labour work. On the basis of will deed, name of the appellant was recorded in the revenue records of the suit property. He is in possession of the suit property and cultivating the same since the lifetime of Ramshilabai and the respondent did not object to the mutation proceedings carried out in her favour on the basis of will deed. Appellant is the sole owner of the suit property. Respondent No.1 filed an appeal against mutation in favour of the appellant before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajnandgaon and without giving proper opportunity of hearing, the Sub-Divisional Officer set aside mutation order passed in favour of the appellant. Thereupon the respondent No.1 is forcefully and illegally trying to get his name recorded on the suit property, by giving threat. Therefore, the suit for relief as stated above was filed. 5. Written statement was filed by respondent No.1 who except the admitted facts has denied the averments of the plaint. It was alleged in the written statement that the suit property was not received by Ramshilabai on partition rather she was residing in Rajnandgaon after leaving her matrimonial home. The respondent No.1 and father of appellant brought her back to village– Iraikhurd and gave house and land (suit property) to her on the condition that till her lifetime she will enjoy the property and after her death the suit property would be partitioned between the two brothers. Ramshilabai did not have any title or right over the land and house (suit property) and any illegal mutation in the revenue records does not create a title and the suit property was a joint property of father of appellant and the respondent No.1, therefore, Ramshilabai was not entitled to execute the will deed. The said will deed is beyond authority and does not create any title in favour of the appellant. After the death of Ramshilabai, respondent No.1 and father of the appellant - Rupram became joint owner. It was further pleaded that about 17- 18 years 4 back, Ramshilabai met with an accident with a vehicle and since then she was not under good mental state, she was not able to understand and was not aware of the will deed. It was further pleaded that the father of the appellant and respondent No.1 had equal share on the suit property and after the death of Ramshilabai without the knowledge of respondent No.1, the appellant illegally got mutated his name in the suit property which was set aside by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajnandgaon. After the death of Ramshilabai, respondent No.1 is in possession and cultivating ½ share of the suit property. The will deed is void ab initio and the appellant is not entitled to any relief on the basis of a will deed, therefore, the suit be dismissed. 6. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned trial Court framed following issues: “1. Whether the appellant is the owner of the land and house described in Schedule A and B on the basis of will dated 24-06- 83 ? If yes, then what will be the effect? 2. Whether the order dated 30-10-96 passed in Revenue Case No.24A/6 of the year 95-96 is illegal? 3. Whether the will executed by Ramsirbai is valid? If yes, what will be its effect? 4. Whether the disputed land and house was given to Ramsirbai by respondent No.1 and Rupram to look after Ramsirbai during her lifetime? 5. Whether the appellant properly evaluated the case and affixed the requisite court fees? 6. Relief and cost?” 7. The appellant has examined 2 witnesses whereas the respondent No.1 examined himself and one other witness. 8. Learned trial Court decided issues in favour of respondent No.1 and dismissed the suit. 5 9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal under Section 96 of CPC was filed by the appellant before the learned 1st Appellate Court who after hearing the parties, dismissed the same vide impugned judgment and decree. It is that which is assailed before this Court in the second appeal. 10. On 05/05/2006, this Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law - “In view of the admitted factual premises that Ramshilabai was the recorded owner and possession holder of the suit land and the same was given to her in lieu of her maintenance, whether both the Courts below were justified in holding that she continued to be the limited owner of that property even after coming into force of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?” 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the Courts below have committed an error of law in rejecting the claim of the appellant. He further submits that both the Courts below committed an error of law in interpreting Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. He goes on to submit that both the Courts below committed an error in holding that the deceased Ramshilabai was not the title holder of the suit property. He further submits that after her death, the appellant was in possession of the suit property as Ramshilabai derived the suit property in partition and she had all the right to execute the will deed in favour of the appellant. Therefore, he submits that the substantial question of law may be decided in favour of the appellant and the relief as claimed in the plaint may be granted. 12. Opposing the above submissions, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that both the Courts below were justified in rejecting the relief claimed by the appellant. He submits that the suit property was given to late Ramshilabai only for the limited purpose of enjoying the property till her lifetime. The suit property cannot be given in favour of Ramshilabai and there was no title in her favour, she was not entitled to execute the will deed in favour of the appellant. He further submitted that the learned trial Court categorically framed issue as to whether the will deed dated 24/06/1983 is void as she did not have any right to execute the same. Both the Courts 6 below did not commit any error in rejecting the claim of the appellant. Therefore, the substantial question of law may be answered in favour of respondent No.1 dismissing the second appeal filed by the appellant. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 14. First of all this Court thinks it apposite to take note of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which reads as under: “14. (1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Explanation.--In this Sub-section, "property" includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property. 15. The witnesses examined by the appellant namely Shatruhan Lal (PW-2) has admitted in his cross-examination that Ramnath was the only son of his father Amru and therefore after the death of Amru the entire land devolved in Ramnath. He has stated that as per the law prevailing then, Ramshilabai was not entitled for any share in the property and therefore her name has not come in the revenue records. He has further admitted that the disputed property was given by Ramnath to Ramshilabai for her living and it was not given to her in partition. According to respondent No.1 the suit land was not given to Ramshilabai in partition rather it was given to her for being used to sustain her and that after her death the disputed land was to be partitioned in between him and the father of the appellant. He has stated that Ramshilabai 7 had no right to make a will in favour of the appellant as the land was given to her for a limited period during her lifetime. None of the witnesses examined by the appellant has been able to prove that the suit land was given to Ramshilabai in partition whereas from the testimony of PW-1 it is manifest that originally the suit land was in the ownership of Amru and after his death it went to his sons and therefore Ramshilabai had no right to partition over the suit land. In these circumstances, it can only be held that the said property was given to her just for being used for her maintenance during her lifetime and after her death the same shall revert back to the father of the appellant and the respondent No.1. Since the suit property was given for a limited purpose and it was not acquired by Ramshilabai by any of the modes contained in Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, no right is vested in her to alienate the property in any manner including by will. As the disputed land was given to Ramshilabai by Ramnath just to ensure her livelihood during her lifetime, the life estate given to her for that purpose cannot create an absolute right in her favour and being so, she was not empowered to create a third party interest by writing a will. In this context I am guided by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kallakuri Pattabhiramaswamy (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Kallakri Kamaraju and others, 2024 SCC OnLine 3379. 16. So learned trial Court on the basis of material on record and the evidence of the witnesses has rightly held that after the death of Ramshilabai, the property in dispute which was handed over to the appellant by way of will cannot be sustainable in law and therefore the said property should revert back to the share of respondent No.1 and the father of the appellant. Even learned lower appellate Court has also affirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court. Being that, this court does not find any illegality in the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below warranting any interference in this appeal. The substantial question of law is answered in negative against the appellant. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Decree be drawn. No cost. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Jyotishi /Deepti