1 2025:CGHC:34741 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 83 of 2023 Judgment Reserved on 09.07.2025 Judgment pronounced on 22.07.2025 Sheela Tandi @ Sheela Pal D/o Shivraj Tandi, Aged About 35 Years Occupation Gramin Krishi Vistar Adhikari, Address 23/450, Behind Bajrang Mandir, Shakti Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District -Raipur Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o L.I.G. -2 Chiranjividas Nagar, Kouhakunda, Raigarh, Tahsil And, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ...Appellant / defendant versus Pradyut Pal (Dead) Through Pankaj Pal S/o Paritosh Kumar Pal, Aged About 49 Years R/o L.I.G.-58, Dr. R.G. Nagar, Phase-2, Housing Board Colony Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent / plaintiff (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi C A V Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant / defendant under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 challenging impugned judgment & decree dated 29th April, 2023 passed by District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Suit A/23/2016 [Pradutt Pal (dead) vs. Sheela Tandi @ 2 Sheela] whereby possession decree has been granted in favour of respondent /plaintiff. [For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their status shown in the plaint filed before the trial Court] 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, is that the plaintiff / husband instituted a civil suit seeking possession of House No. L.I.G. 2 situated at Chiranjeev Das Nagar, Kauhakunda, Raigarh, District Raigarh shown in Schedule "A" attached with the plaint (henceforth, ‘suit house’) against defendant / wife stating inter alia that marriage of plaintiff / husband was solemnized with respondent / wife on 11.05.2007, but because of cruelty meted out to him by defendant / wife, they resided separately since 2010. Ultimately, plaintiff / husband obtained decree of divorce vide order dated 31.03.2014 passed by Family Court, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 41-A/2010 (Pradyut Kumar Pal vs. Smt. Sheela Pal) and their marriage was dissolved from the date of said order i.e. from 31.03.2014. Civil suit for restoration of conjugal right bearing Civil Suit No. 42-A / 2012 filed by appellant/ wife was also dismissed by the Family Court, Raigarh vide judgment & decree dated 31.03.2012. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that he is working in Jindal Steel & Power Limited, Raigarh. In the year, 2005, he purchased the suit house and gave it on rent, but taking advantage of absence of plaintiff, on 19.12.2012, respondent/wife alongwith Anjali Tiwari and about 8-10 other persons forcefully entered in the suit house, ousted the tenants and illegally taken possession of the suit house and since then she is residing therein. Even after being complaint made to the police station, no action was taken against the defendant and other persons, therefore, on being private complaint made 3 by him, Criminal Case No. 529 of 2013 for offence under Sections 452 & 448/34 of the IPC has been registered against them. It is further pleaded that since suit house was purchased by plaintiff prior to his marriage and decree of divorce has also been granted in his favour, therefore, the defendant/ wife has no right at all in the suit house, despite that she has forcefully occupied the suit house, hence, he filed civil suit seeking possession of it from the defendant/wife. 3. Defendant/wife has filed written statement pleading therein that all the allegations levelled against her by the plaintiff is false & baseless. It is further pleaded that since she (defendant) has performed love marriage with the plaintiff, therefore, in the hope of pleasureful and prosperous marital life, she has given amount to the plaintiff to purchase the suit house, thus, she has also invested amount to purchase the suit house, hence, plaintiff is not the sole owner but he is a co-owner of the suit house along with the defendant, therefore, possession of defendant /wife on the suit house cannot be said to be illegal. As such, the plaintiff is not entitled to get vacant possession of the suit house by evicting the defendant. 4. On the basis of pleading of both the parties, learned trial Court framed as many as three issues, recorded evidence of both the parties and after considering the same, allowed the civil suit filed by the plaintiff /husband and granted decree in his favour holding therein that the plaintiff has purchased the suit house alone and all the sale consideration / installments have been paid by him. The defendant has not invested any amount in this regard and she has forcefully taken possession of the suit house, therefore, she is directed to hand over the vacant possession of 4 the suit house to the plaintiff. 5. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the same, instant first appeal has been preferred by the appellant / defendant questioning the same. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / defendant would submit that though marriage of defendant was solemnized with the plaintiff in the year 2007, but prior to that, they were in love affair, as such, they performed love marriage. He further submits that to purchase the suit house, the defendant had given huge amount to the plaintiff, therefore, she is also co-owner of the suit house alongwith the plaintiff. It is further contended that though decree of divorce has been granted in favour of plaintiff, but the same has been challenged by defendant before the High Court, hence, the fate of suit has not been finalized, rather because of filing appeal, it amounts to continuation of the suit, therefore, finding recorded by the trial court that defendant has no right to keep possession of the suit house, is not sustainable. It is next contended that original plaintiff has expired, but his brother has been illegally impleaded and permitted to represent instant civil suit. It is submitted that since defendant is co-owner of the suit house and as of now her husband / original plaintiff has died, decree of divorced has not attained finality, therefore, she cannot be dispossessed from suit house. As such, the finding recorded by trial court is against the law & evidence available on record, hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff would support the impugned judgment passed by the trial court. 5 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including record of trial Court. 9. Undisputedly, the original plaintiff (now dead) and appellant/defendant were husband & wife and their marriage was solemnized on 11.05.2007. It is also proved from oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties that vide judgment & decree dated 31.03.2014 passed by Family Court, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 41A/2010 (Pradyut Kumar Pal vs. Smt. Seela Pal) , decree of divorce was granted in favour of plaintiff/ husband and their marriage was dissolved from the date of passing of the said order i.e. from 31.03.2014. As such, legal status of defendant as wife of plaintiff came to an end from 31.03.2014. 10. The plaintiff has purchased the suit house from C.G. Housing Board, Project Division, Raigarh in the year 2004-2005 through a lease deed (Ex. P-7) under the self-finance scheme. For this, he had taken a loan from the bank and got the remaining installments deducted from his bank account. All these facts have been proved by plaintiff – Pradut Kumar Pal (PW-1) himself & Pankaj Gurupanchanan (PW-2), who is employee of Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Raigarh. In this regard, the plaintiff has also filed original lease deed of suit house, its copy and copy of his loan account of Bank vide Ex. P-7 to Ex.P-24. Nothing has been brought in their cross-examination to elicit aforesaid facts. 11. Defendant – Sheela Tandi @ Sheela Pal has stated in her deposition that while purchasing the suit house, plaintiff had borrowed Rs. 2,00,000/- from her and stated that suit house shall be purchased in the joint name with her and under hope of bright and prosperous marital live, 6 she had given amount to the plaintiff, but he had purchased the suit house vide lease deed (Ex.P-7) only in his name. The defendant has neither examined any other witness in support of her contention nor has filed any document in this regard. On the one hand, she has stated in her deposition that, she had given Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff to purchase suit house but in other hand i.e. in cross-examination, she has stated that she had deposited that amount in the office of Housing Board, but she has not filed any document to substantiate her deposition. 12. As per oral & documentary evidence of Pradut Kumar Pal (PW-1) and Pankaj Gurupanchanan (PW-2) and loan account statement of plaintiff, the plaintiff has purchased the suit house in the year 2004-2005 by way of lease deed (Ex.P-7) and total value of lease i.e. ₹ 3,64,180/- was also paid by him till 27.6.2006 and possession of suit house was also handed over to the plaintiff /husband on 30.6.2006, then, after one year, marriage of defendant was solemnized with the plaintiff on 11.05.2007. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence, it is very well proved that about one year prior to their marriage, the original plaintiff had purchased the suit house by way of lease deed (Ex.P-7) by taking loan from the Bank and all the amount was paid by him through his Bank account, therefore, only on the basis of verbal and unsupported statement of defendant, it cannot be held that defendant had given any amount to the plaintiff or deposited any installment of the suit house for the purpose of purchase of the suit house. As such, finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the suit house was purchased by plaintiff is well merited and based on well appreciation of evidence available on record, hence, the same is upheld. 7 13. Plaintiff – late Pradutt Kumar Pal (PW-1) has deposed that after purchase of the suit house, he had given the same on rent, but on 19.12.2012, defendant alongwith some other persons forcefully entered in the suit house, ousted the tenants and forcefully occupied the suit house and since then she is residing therein. This fact also get support from deposition of B.P. Mishra, Sub Inspector (PW-3), who, on being private complaint filed by the plaintiff against defendant and others, had enquired the matter and submitted report before the Court and Suresh Agrawal (PW-4), who was residing in the suit house on rent. Respondent - Sheela Tandi @ Sheela Pal (DW-1) herself has admitted in her cross-examination that before entering into the suit house, she had informed the concerned police station in writing and thereafter, on 19.12.2012 she had entered into the suit house and since then, she is in possession over it. This fact is also get support from the evidence of Sub-Inspector – B.P. Mishra (PW-3). Thus, it is very well proved that defendant has got forceful possession on the suit house since 19.12.2012 and, thereafter, she is continuous in possession of the same. But, it has also been proved that suit house was purchased on lease by original plaintiff – Pradut Pal from his own income, therefore, he was absolute owner of the suit house. 14. Undisputedly, defendant was legally wedded wife of original plaintiff – Pradutt Kumar Pal (now dead), but decree of divorce was granted in his favour on 31.03.2014 and their marriage was dissolved from 31.03.2014, therefore, right of defendant to inherit the property of plaintiff /husband as his wife came to an end with the wife losing her status as wife consequent upon decree of divorce, therefore, she cannot inherit / succeed the suit house of the plaintiff/husband. 8 15. Though, the defendant has pleaded that she has challenged judgment & decree dated 31.03.2014 passed by Family Court, Raigarh in Civil Suit No.41-A/2010, whereby decree of divorce was granted to the plaintiff, but nothing has been deposed by her in her deposition nor she has filed copy of memo of appeal, etc, therefore, aforesaid pleading made by defendant/wife cannot be held to be proved. 16. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment & decree passed by the trial Court, which call for any indulgence of this Court, therefore, judgment & decree passed by the trial Court is affirmed. 17. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to cost (s). 18. A decree be drawn- up accordingly. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.07.23 11:17:04 +0530