1 2025:CGHC:23809 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 303 of 2024 1 - Jagdish S/o Late Manbhawan Aged About 52 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Tumadheta, Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/Defendant No.1 versus 1 - Harjit S/o Late Manbhawan Aged About 45 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Village Tumadheta, Presently R/o Machacha, Tahsil And District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Khobaharin Wd/o Manbhawan Caste Satnami, R/o Village Tumadheta, Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sarita D/o Late Manbhawan W/o Bhagwat, R/o Village Medhwar, Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - Matra Bai D/o Manbhawan Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Tumadheta, Tahsil Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate For State-Respondent No.5 : Mrs. Mandvi Bhardwaj, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment On Board 13/06/2025 1 Heard. 2 This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and 2 decree dated 09.05.2024 passed by the First District Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli (CG) in Civil Appeal No.20A/2023 granting decree in favour of the plaintiff and reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2021 passed by the Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Mungeli, District Mungeli (CG) in Civil Suit No.42A/2018, whereby learned trial Court has dismissed the civil suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff for declaration of his joint title and grant of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. (The parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status in the suit before the trial Court.) 3 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant No.1 submits that since the land bearing Khasra No.303/6, Rakba 1.39 acre and Khasra No.316/3, Rakba 2.51 acre, situated at Village Parsiya, P.H.No.19 R.N.M. and Tehsil Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh (henceforth referred to as “suit property”) was ancestral property of both the parties, as such, plaintiff was also having coparcenary right and plaintiff had sold his share to defendant No.1 namely; Jagdish, though it was not sold by registered sale deed. He further submits that Budhelal, who was brother of plaintiff & defendants No.1, 3 & 4 and son of defendant No.2, was not made party in civil suit. Further, possession was not sought for by the plaintiff, as such, the suit was not maintainable under the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (henceforth referred to as “the Act, 1963”), but without considering the aforesaid facts, learned First Appellate Court has reversed the finding of the trial Court and granted decree in favour of the plaintiff, which is perverse and illegal, hence, he prays that this appeal may be admitted for hearing on proposed substantial question of law. 3 4 Undisputedly, the plaintiff & defendants No.1, 3 & 4 are brothers and sisters and defendant No.2 -Khorbaharin is their mother. It is also not in dispute that the suit property was ancestral property of both the parties, therefore, plaintiff was also having coparcenary right over the suit property. Though possession was not sought for by the plaintiff in civil suit, but it is settled position of law that possession of one coparcener is deemed to be possession of all the coparcener, as such, not seeking physical possession by plaintiff will not affect his civil suit in respect of the provisions of Section 34 of the Act, 1963. Since alleged sale was not made by plaintiff vide registered sale deed, therefore, on the basis of that, plaintiff cannot be deprived from his title over the suit property. Even in fact situation of the case, non-joinder of one of the family member -Budhelal will also not adversary affect the civil suit of plaintiff, as in civil suit, he has sought relief only for declaration of his joint title along with other co-sharers. 5 Having considered the impugned judgment rendered by learned First Appellate Court, nature of dispute and relief sought for by the plaintiff, no question of law is found to be framed in this appeal, hence, the second appeal is dismissed at motion stage. 6 Records of both the Courts below be returned along with a copy of this judgment. 7 The decree be drawn accordingly. 8 The parties to bear their own cost. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.06.17 11:39:47 +0530