1 2025:CGHC:38679 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 165 of 2021 1 - Ajit Kishordas Vaishnav S/o Late Vaidehisharan Kishordas Vaishnav Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Padmawatipur, Post Padmawatipur, Police Station And Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kumari Anjali Devi Vaishnav D/o Late Vaidehisharan Kishordas Vaishnav Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Padmawatipur , Post Padmawatipur, Police Station And Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Sushila Devi Wd/o Late Vaidehisharan Kishordas Vaishnav Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Padmawatipur , Post Padmawatipur, Police Station And Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - Nagendra Kishordas S/o Late Balkrishnadas Vaishnav Aged About 80 Years R/o Village And Post Padmawatipur , Police Station And Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Laxmidevi W/o Nagendra Kishordas Aged About 65 Years R/o Village And Post Padmawatipur , Police Station And Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Shradhadevi Wd/o Late Vaidehisharan Kishordas Vaishnav Aged About 44 Years R/o Village And Post Padmawatipur , Police Station And Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ashok Jaiswal Aged About 75 Years Contector Aramashin, Village Padmawatipur, R/o Village Silhati , Police Station And Tahsil Sahaspur , Lohara, District Kawardha, Address Village And Post Padmawatipur , Police Station And Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Gitanjali Devi D/o Nagendra Kishordas Vaishnav, W/o Pramod Singh Thakur Aged About 42 Years R/o Gandai, Bus Stand , Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Gayatri Devi D/o Nagendra Kishordas Vaishnav , W/o Vinay Vaishnav Aged About 37 Years R/o Kabirdham, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. 2 7 - Smt. Manju Devi Wd/o Late Yogendradas Vaishnav Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Anjora, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. 8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Office Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For State/Respondent No.8 : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment On Board 05/08/2025 1 Heard on admission. 2 This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2021 passed by the Upper District Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (CG) in Civil Appeal No.25A/2015 upholding the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (CG) in Civil Suit No.26A/2012, whereby the civil suit filed by appellants/ plaintiffs for declaration of title, partition, share and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property, has been dismissed. (The parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status in the suit before the trial Court.) 3 Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that plaintiff No.3 -Smt. Sushila Devi is daughter-in-law of defendant No.1-Nagendra Kishordas and plaintiffs No.1 & 2 are son and daughter of plaintiff No.3. They are seeking partition over the suit property owned by Nagendra Kishordas. He would further submit that the suit property is an ancestral property of Nagendra Kishordas. When specific question was posed to the counsel for 3 the appellants as to whether plaintiffs have proved the fact that the suit property is an ancestral property of Nagendra Kishordas, then he submits that, no document has been filed/proved by the plaintiffs in this regard. 4 The trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have held that the suit property is not an ancestral property of defendant No.1-Nagendra Kishordas, rather it is his self-acquired property, therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled to get share over the suit property, as it has not been proved that the suit property is an ancestral property of Nagendra Kishordas. 5 The plaintiffs have claimed their share over the suit property, but since the suit property has not been proved to be ancestral property of Nagendra Kishordas and in absence of such evidence, the suit property is found to be self acquired property of Nagendra Kishordas, therefore both the Courts below have rightly held that in lifetime of defendant No.1- Nagendra Kishordas, plaintiffs are not entitled to get share of the suit property. 6 On due consideration, no substantial question of law is found to be framed in the instant appeal, hence, the same is dismissed at motion stage. 7 The parties to bear their own cost. 8 The decree be drawn accordingly. 9 Records of both the Courts below be returned along with a copy of this judgment. 10 Pending Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.08.06 17:39:00 +0530