1 2025:CGHC:31832 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 630 of 2025 1. Shyamlal S/o Late Jageshar, Aged About 68 Years R/o Bhilai Nagar, Sector-7, Street No. 37 B, Qr.No. 20 E, 20 F, 21 A, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 2. Hemant Chaturvedi, S/o Shri Shyamlal, Aged About 47 Years R/o Bhilai Nagar, Sector-7, Street No. 37 B, Qr.No. 20 E, 20 F, 21 A, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 3. Dhanesh Chaturvedi, S/o Shri Shyamlal, Aged About 44 Years R/o Bhilai Nagar, Sector-7, Street No. 37 B, Qr.No. 20 E, 20 F, 21 A, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 4. Mahesh Chaturvedi, S/o Shri Shyamlal, Aged About 35 Years R/o Bhilai Nagar, Sector-7, Street No. 37 B, Qr.No. 20 E, 20 F, 21 A, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 5. Smt. Sarla, W/o Shri Ravi Banjare, D/o Shyamlal, R/o Village Sinodha, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Ku. Jagriti Chaturvedi D/o Shri Dhanesh Chaturvedi, Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Gatapar, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Shivam Chaturvedi, S/o Shri Dhanesh Chaturvedi, Aged About 15 Years R/o Village Gatapar, Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate For State : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10. 07.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition against the order passed by the SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.14 14:21:06 +0530 2 Second District Judge, Raipur, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 53/2024 dated 13.06.2025, whereby the appeal preferred by defendants No. 1 to 5/petitioners has been dismissed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court on the application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC has been affirmed. 2. The facts of the present case are the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 & 2 filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 pertaining to lands bearing survey Nos. 451/2, 452/2, 464 ad-measuring 2.0857 hectares situated at village Belbhata, Patwari Circle No. 50, Abhanpur, Raipur, District Raipur inter alia on the ground that the suit property is not the self acquired property of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 1 is alienating the suit property. 3. The defendants filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the application of temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 & 2 vide order dated 06.07.2024. The defendants/petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 13.06.2025 on the ground that the suit land was recorded in the name of Jageshwar, the grandfather of the defendants and it is the ancestral property of the joint family. Against the said order, the instant petition has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that lands alienated by defendant No. 1 became his self acquired property after partition though his name is not entered in revenue records. He would also submit that the learned Trial Court has committed an error of law in holding that the suit property is not self acquired property of defendant No. 1. He would pray to set-aside the order passed by the learned Courts below. 3 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would support the orders passed by the learned Courts below. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7. The learned Courts below have recorded a categorical finding that initially, the suit property was recorded in the name of Jageshwar, the grandfather of the defendants and some part of the property has already been alienated. It is further held that as per the defendants’ version, they obtained the suit property in partition but they failed to produce any document in this regard. The learned trial Court has restrained the defendants from further alienating the property and that order has been affirmed by the learned appellate Court; therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Courts below. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant