2025:CGHC:35758 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 263 of 2015 1 - Devsingh Lodhi Died On 24/06/2015 Leaving Behind Legal Heirs Only Appellant No. 1 And 2 Appellant No. 1 - Indrajeet Lodhi S/o Bahal Lodhi, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Pendri, P.O. Dhotha, Police Station And Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Mohni Bai Lodhi D/o Devsingh Lodhi, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Pendri, P.O. Dhotha, Police Station And Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ..........Defendants, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Rambai Lodhi D/o Devsingh Lodhi, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Pendrawan Sonar, P.O. Pendrawan, Police Station And Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Kaushilya Bai Lodhi D/o Devsingh Lodhi, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Pendri, P.O. Dhotha, Police Station And Tahsil Dhamdha, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ..........Plaintiff No. 1 And 2, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- Collector, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ..........Defendant No.4, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Appellants : Shri H.B. Agrawal Sr. Advocate with Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate For R1&2 : Shri Mayank Mulchandani, Advocate For State : Shri K.L. Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 24.07.2025 1. This is defendants’ first appeal filed under Section 96 of the C.P.C. challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2015 passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. A/1236267/2013 by which the learned trial Court allowed the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction. 2. The parties are referred to as described in the civil suit before the learned trial Court. 3. The brief facts as reflected from the plaint’s averments are that the plaintiffs filed civil suit contending that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 3 are the daughters of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 is the son of defendant No. 3 and the land bearing Khasra No. 41/1 125/2 228/1 229/1234/3, 262/2 272 274, 446/1 total area 1.07 hectare situated in Village Pendri P.H.No. 15. R.N.M. Dhamdha, Tehsil Dhamdha District-Durg is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3. The plaintiffs came to know in the month of September, 2012 that in order to prevent the plaintiffs from getting their rights and share in the said ancestral land, defendant No.1 Dev Singh has sold 0.06 hectare of the suit land out of 1.07 hectare of Khasra 229/1 and 0.05 hectare of Khasra number 228/1 (referred to as ‘suit property’) to defendant No.2 through a registered sale deed dated 14.05.2010 and 11.09.2012, without giving any share in the sale consideration to the plaintiffs without any necessity to sell the property therefore, prayed that the sale deed 14.05.2010 and 11.09.2012 executed in favour of defendant No. 2 be declared as null and void. 4. The defendants filed written statement admitting the fact the suit property is part of the ancestral property but denied that defendant No.1 has no right to sell the property. He has sold land bearing Khasra No. 229/1 and 228/1 to defendant No. 2 on medical emergency of the treatment of his wife. Thus, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file civil suit and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Learned trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed as many as 2 issues which read as under:- A. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to obtain a declaration to this effect that the registered sale deed dated 14/05/2010 and the registered sale deed dated 11/09/2012 are illegal and void ab-initio and are not binding on them? B. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to obtain a permanent injunction against defendant No. 1 to prevent defendant No. 1 from registering the sale deed in respect of the ancestral property situated in Village Pendri P.H.No. 15 R.N.M. Dhamdha? 6. The plaintiff to substantiate his case has examined Koushlya as PW-1 and Tekram as PW-2 and exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 – Sale deed dated 14.05.2010, Ex.P2 – Sale deed dated 11.09.2012, Ex.P3 – complaint. 7. The defendants examined Indrajit as DW-1 and did not exhibit any document. 8. The learned Trial Court on appreciation of evidence and materials available on record allowed the suit and recorded its finding that the sold property is the part of ancestral property. It has also recorded its finding that as per the Hindu Succession Act (Amendment), 2005 the daughters being coparceners are entitled to get share at par with son in the property owned by the father. It has also recorded its finding since defendant No. 1 has sold the property to defendant No. 2 which is without consent of co-owners plaintiffs, therefore, the sale deeds Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 are void ab-initio to the extent the shares of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2, therefore, it is not binding upon the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree, the defendants have filed present first appeal. 9. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellants vehemently criticized the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and would submit that learned trial Court should have dismissed the suit as it is barred by limitation and learned trial Court has committed illegality in recording its finding that since partition has not been taken place therefore, the sale deed is null and void to extent of share of the plaintiffs accordingly he would pray for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and would pray for allowing the appeal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 would submit that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is legal and just and does not warrant interference by this Court. He would further submit that the defendants have failed to plead and prove that there was necessity to sell the suit property, still it has been sold, therefore, learned trial Court has not committed illegality in allowing the suit, thus, he would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Court below with utmost satisfaction. 12. On pleadings of the parties, materials placed on record the point to be determined by this Court is :- ‘Whether the trial Court was justified in holding that the sale deed is null and void to the extent of shares of the plaintiffs?’ 13. From the submission and considering the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that the suit property is the ancestral property as admitted by both the parties and as per the amendment dated 05/09/2005 in the Hindu Succession Act, daughters have been given equal rights as sons. In such a situation, part of the ancestral property which has been sold by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 through Ex.P.-1 and 2 are without legal necessity of the family. The defendant No.1 has also not been able to prove that this property has been sold to defendant No. 2 for meeting out medical expenses of his wife to justify that the sale deed was executed to fulfill his own and his family's needs. Therefore, the sale deed Ex. P.-1 and 2 are illegal and void to the extent of the plaintiffs' share. This finding of the learned trial Court does not suffer from the irregularity or illegality which warrant interference by this Court. Therefore, the first appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 14. Thus, the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2015 passed in Civil Suit No. A/1236267/2013 is affirmed. 15. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge kishore KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2025.07.29 18:43:07 +0530