1 2025:CGHC:9144 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 28 of 2021 1 - Rajesh Tandiya S/o Late Dhannuram Tandiya Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Kishanpuri, Post Office- Parsoda, P.S.- Korar, Tahsil- Charama, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Yashvant Tandiya S/o Late Chanduram Tandiya Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Kishanpuri, Post Office- Parsoda, P.S.- Korar, Tahsil- Charama, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Virendra Tandiya S/o Bamarlal Tandiya Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Kishanpuri, Post Office- Parsoda, P.S.- Korar, Tahsil- Charama, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Mahendra Kumar Tandiya S/o Late Bachchuram Tandiya Aged About 57 Years R/o Village- Kishanpuri, Post Office- Parsoda, P.S.- Korar, Tahsil- Charama, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chaitram Kuldeep S/o Gangaram Kuldeep Aged About 65 Years R/o Village- Kishanpuri, Post Office- Parsoda, P.S.- Korar, Tahsil- Charama, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Khumesh Kumar Tandiya S/o Krishnaram Tandiya Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Kishanpuri, Post Office- Parsoda, P.S.- Korar, Tahsil- Charama, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Smt. Monika W/o Late Paras Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Kishanpuri, Tahsil- Charama, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 2 – Anurag (Minor) S/o Paras Aged About 14 Years Legal Guardian Through Mother, Respondent No. 1, Caste- Gond, R/o Village- Kishanpuri, Tahsil- Charama, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 3 – Avikumar (Minor) S/o Paras Aged About 13 Years Legal Guardian Through Mother, Respondent No. 1, Caste – Gond, R/o Village- Kishanpuri, Tahsil- Charama, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.02.24 14:17:50 +0530 2 4 - Ku. Divya (Minor) D/o Paras Aged About 15 Years Legal Guardian Through Mother, Respondent No. 1, Caste – Gond, R/o Village- Kishanpuri, Tahsil- Charama, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Hemant S/o Rajbahadur Aged About 40 Years Caste-Kshtriya, R/o Village- Korar, Tahsil And District- Kanker,chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellants : Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Mukesh Shrivastava and Ms. Itu Rani Mukherjee, Advocates (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 21/02/2025 1. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred challenging Order dated 22.02.2021 passed by District Judge, North Bastar, Kanker in MJC No.02/2020, whereby application filed by the respondents under Section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short ‘Act 1890’) and Section 8 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for short ‘Act 1956) has been allowed in their favour and mother of minor respondents, namely Smt. Monika, W/o. Late Paras was permitted to sell the suit land. 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell are that, the respondents 1 to 4 herein filed application under Section 29 of the Act, 1890 and Section 8 of the Act, 1956, stating inter alia that the applicants are owners of land bearing Khasra No.694 area 0.02 hectare, Khasra No.775 area 1.21 hectare, Khasra No.776 area 1.21 hectare, Khasra No.1000/1 area 0.06 hectare and Khasra No.1115/957 area 0.02 hectare situated at Village Kishanpuri, Tahsil Charama Distt. North Bastar, Kanker (herein after referred as ‘the suit land’). It was pleaded that respondent No.1 is mother and guardian of respondents 2, 3 & 4 (applicants therein). Since husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents 2 to 4 died, therefore, for the purpose of education, maintenance, welfare and purchase of house, respondent No.1 wanted to sell the suit land, as such, she entered into an agreement of sale of suit land with non- 3 applicant/respondent No.5 herein, therefore, the respondents sought permission of the court to sell the suit land to respondent No.5. 3. The learned District Judge framed points for determination, recorded statement of the applicants, witnesses and vide impugned Order, granted permission to respondent No.1/applicant Smt. Monika to sell the suit land in favour of respondent No.5/non-applicant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants, claiming themselves to be the relatives of the respondents 1 to 4, have filed instant appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are relatives of respondents 1 to 4, but impugned order has been obtained by respondents 1 to 4 without impleading them as party. She further submits that after death of Paras, who was husband of respondent No.1 Monika, she performed second marriage. Learned counsel further submits that though after obtaining impugned order, respondent No.1 has executed registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.5 herein, but that sale deed is not valid, hence, the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order dated 22.02.2021 passed by District Judge, North Bastar, Kanker in MJC No.02/2020 may be set aside. 5. Respondents 1 to 5 have filed their reply. While referring the reply, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 would submit that the appellants herein have filed instant appeal with ulterior motive as they have no right, title or share over the subject land. He would further submit that the appellants have no locus to challenge the order impugned as they were not party in the proceedings before the learned District Judge, North Bastar Kanker, hence this appeal is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the appellants have filed instant appeal under Section 8(5)(c) of the Act, 1956 read with Section 47 of the Act,1890. However, perusal of provisions of aforesaid Act shows that an appeal can be filed only against refusal for grant of permission by the Court, whereas in the instant case, the learned District had granted permission to the applicants to sell out the suit land, and further the appeal is not covered under the provisions of Section 47 of Act, 1890, hence, on this 4 count also this appeal is not maintainable. Therefore, it is prayed that, instant appeal, being not maintainable, deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Undisputedly, the appellants were not party before the District Judge in MJC No.02/2020. Though the appellants themselves are claiming to be the relatives of Late Paras (husband of respondent No.1 & father of respondents 2 to 4), but they have not pleaded as to how they are the relatives of the respondents or late Paras. Therefore, the appellants have no locus to challenge the order impugned. Further, as per age of respondents 2 to 4 mentioned in the cause-title, it seems that they have attained age of majority, but no objection has been raised by them in this regard. It is not contended by the appellants that respondents 1 to 4 are not the owners of the subject land and they have also not contended that as to what right the appellants have over the suit land. 8. Thus, since neither relation of the appellants with respondents 1 to 4 or Late Paras is clear nor they have filed any documents nor made any pleading to demonstrate the fact that what right they hold over the suit land, I do not find any locus on the part of the appellants to file instant appeal, as such, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini