1 2025:CGHC:41402-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR First Appeal No. 366 of 2018 1 - Ashutosh Pandey S/o Sammukh Prasad Pandey Aged About 18 Years R/o Dayalband Bilaspur., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Umakant Pandey S/o Sammukh Prasad Pandey Aged About 16 Years Through Guardian Mother Smt. Asha Pandey, R/o Dayalband Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Vimlabai D/o Late Padamkar Prasad Pandey Aged About 60 Years Tahsil Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Nirmalabai D/o Late Padamkar Prasad Pandey Aged About 58 Years R/o Lochanpur Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Smt. Saraswati Bai D/o Late Padmakar Prasad Pandey Aged About 52 Years R/o Mungali District Mangali Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Ramdulari Bai D/o Late Padmakar Prasad Aged About 47 Years R/o Madanpur Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2025.08.20 11:06:47 +0530 2 7 - Smt. Geetabai D/o Late Padmakar Prasad Pandey Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Behurta Tahsil Takhatpur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. … Appellants/Plaintiffs versus 1 - Davnarayan S/o Nilamber Agheriya Aged About 54 Years Agriculturist R/o Khairpur Tahsil And District Raigarh Chhattigarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sammukh Prasad Pandey (Died) Through Legal Heirs As Per Honble Court Order dated 22-09- 2023. 2.1 - (A) Smt. Asha Pandey W/o Late Shri Sammukh Prasad Pandey. (deleted as per Honble Court order dated 18.08.2025) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents/Defendents For Appellants :Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 :Mr. Suman Kesri, Advocate For Respondent No.3 (State) :Mr. Sharad Mishra, P.L. 3 DB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment On Board 18.08 .2025 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction vested upon this Court, the appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this first appeal under Section 96 of CPC questioning the legality, validity and correctness of impugned judgment and decree dated 27/03/2018 (Annexure A1) passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 17A/2016 whereby the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 20/08/2018 (Annexure A/6) executed by respondent/defendant No. 2 in favour of respondent/defendant No. 1 is not binding upon them and also seeking permanent injunction for restraining defendant No. 1 from interfering with their possession, has been dismissed finding no merit. (For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their status and ranking given in the plaint before the trial Court.) 4 2. Late Padmakar Pandey had five daughters i.e. plaintiffs No. 3 to 7 and one son i.e. defendant No. 2. After his death, he left behind 4.640 hectares of agricultural land at Village Parapali, PC No. 7, Tahsil Kharsiya, District Raigarh including the suit land bearing Khasra No. 85/4 area 1.781 hectares, which was sold by defendant No. 2 by executing sale deed dated 20/08/2018 (Annexure A/6) in favour of defendant No. 1 for a cash consideration of Rs. 12 lakhs and also delivered the peaceful possession of the said suit land in favour of defendant No. 1. 3. On 15/02/2016, plaintiffs No. 1 and 2, being minor sons of defendant No. 2 represented through their guardian mother Smt. Asha Pandey, initially filed a suit in which sisters of defendant No. 2 were also impleaded as plaintiffs No. 3 to 7 during the pendency of the suit stating inter alia that defendant No. 2 had received 10 acres of land in partition in which plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 also had 2/3rd share, as such, defendant No. 2 had no right to alienate suit land in favour of defendant No. 1 since he was not the sole owner, therefore, the sale deed dated 20/08/2018 (Annexure A/6) executed by 5 defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 be declared not binding upon the plaintiffs and relief of permanent injunction also be granted in their favour by restraining defendant No. 1 from interfering with their possession. 4. 4. Defendant No. 1 filed separate written statement stating that defendant No. 2, claiming himself to be the title-holder of the suit land, had executed sale deed dated 20/08/2018 (Annexure A/6) in his favour for a cash consideration of Rs. 12 lakhs and at present, defendant No. 1 is in possession of the said suit land. 5. Defendant No. 2 also filed his written statement opposing the plaint averments. 6. At this stage, it would be appropriate to mention here that on behalf of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2, their guardian mother Smt. Asha Pandey (PW-1) has been examined before the Court, however, defendant No. 2 did not get himself examined, though one witness was examined on his behalf. 7. Learned trial Court framed 5 issues and answered them in negative, as stated below :- 6 वाद प्रश्न निष्कर्ष 1) क्या प्रतिवादी क्रमांक 2 द्वारा निदांक को वाद ग्रस् भूनिम ग्राम परसापाली पटवारी हल्का ंबर 7 हसील खरसिसया खसरा ंबर 85/4 रकबा 1.781 हे. भूनिम को निवक्रय कर प्रतिवादी क्रमांक 2 के पास बंधक रखा था ? " प्रमाणि( हीं " 2) क्या प्रतिवादी क्रमांक 2 द्वारा प्रतिवादी क्रमांक 1 के पक्ष में निष्पानिद बयामा निदांक 20/08/13 संयुक्त परिरवार की निबा निकसी निवतिधक आवश्यका की पू2 हेु निष्पानिद निकया गया ? " प्रमाणि( हीं " 3) क्या वादीग(, प्रतिवादीग( क्रमांक 2 द्वारा प्रतिवादी क्रमांक 1 के पक्ष में निष्पानिद निवक्रय बयामा निदांक 20/08/13 के वादीग( के बंधकारी हीं होे की घोर्ष(ा प्राप्त करे की अतिधकारी है ? " प्रमाणि( हीं " 4) क्या वादीग(, वादग्रस् भूनिम पर प्रतिवादी क्रमांक 1 द्वारा हस्छेप निकये जाे से निर्षेतिध निकये जाे से स्थायी निर्षेधाज्ञा प्राप्त करे के अतिधकारी है ? " प्रमाणि( हीं " 5) अुोर्ष एवं व्यय ? " कं ति=का 24 के अुसार वादीग( का वाद निरस् निकया गया। " 8. In sum and substance, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that plaintiffs are not entitled for grant of relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 20/08/2018 (Annexure A6) is not binding upon them and also not entitled for the relief of grant of permanent injunction as claimed by them. 7 9. Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs by recording a finding which is perverse and contrary to the record as defendant No. 2 has sold the suit land in favour of defendant No. 1 vide sale deed dated 20/08/2018 (Annexure A6) without any legal necessity of the joint family, therefore, the said sale deed ought to have been declared as not binding upon the plaintiffs and consequently, defendant No. 1 ought to have been restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs, as such, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside. 10. Mr. Suman Kesari, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, would support the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and submit that the suit seems to have been filed by defendant No. 2 through his minor sons represented by their guardian mother in order to grab the property which has already been transferred in favour of defendant No. 1 and who is in peaceful 8 possession of the suit land, as such, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein- above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, the point that requires determination in this appeal is, “whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs finding no merit ?” 13. Since plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 were minor at the time of trial, they were represented by their guardian mother Smt. Asha Pandey (PW-1), wife of defendant No. 2, who has been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs before the trial Court. A careful perusal of her statement would show that in her cross-examination in paragraph 17, she has admitted that after the death of late Padmakar Pandey, father of plaintiffs No. 3 to 7 as well as defendant No. 2, the suit land being a part of Khasra No. 85/4 area 4.30 hectares fell in the share of defendant No. 2 in 9 partition. As such, once it has already been admitted by the plaintiffs’ witness that suit land fell in the share of defendant No. 2, then it cannot be said that he was not entitled to make alienation of the said suit land in favour of defendant No. 1 by sale deed dated 20/08/2018 (Annexure A6). Therefore, it can safely be concluded that defendant No. 2 had the right and title over the suit land to make alienation in favour of defendant No. 1 by executing sale deed dated 20/08/2018 (Annexure A6), which is evidently clear from the statement of plaintiffs’ witness Smt. Asha Pandey (PW-1), who has admitted in paragraph 17 of her cross- examination that the suit land fell in the share of defendant No. 2 in partition, after the death of his father. 14. Furthermore, defendant No. 2 alienated the suit land by executing sale deed dated 20/08/2018 (Annexure A6) in favour of defendant No. 1 and thereby, delivered the possession to him on the same date, however, the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs on 15/02/2016 i.e. after two and a half years and that too, only for seeking 10 declaration that the said sale deed is not binding upon them, however, the sale deed 20/08/2018 (Annexure A6) clearly recites that possession of the suit land has been handed over from defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1, who has also stated that he is in peaceful possession of the suit land, as such, plaintiffs also ought to have claimed the relief of delivery of possession in view of proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In that view of the matter, plaintiffs’ suit for declaration that sale deed dated 20/08/2018 (Annexure A6) is not binding upon them and for permanent injunction is not maintainable in absence of consequential relief of recovery of possession (See : Vinay Krishna v. Keshav Chandra and Another1). 15. Consequently, for the reasons mentioned herein- above, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court in justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs finding no merit and we do not find any good ground warranting interference in the impugned judgment and decree. 1 1993 Supp (3) SCC 129 11 16. Accordingly, this first appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). 17. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Harneet