1 2025:CGHC:43902 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 194 of 2023 1 - Smt. Savitri Devi W/o Late Bansidhar Tiwari Aged About 60 Years R/o Ramanujganj, Ward No.9, P.S. And Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Civil And Revenue District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) 2 - Vijay Tiwari S/o Late Bansidhar Tiwari Aged About 40 Years R/o Ramanujganj, Ward No.9, P.S. And Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - Sanjay Tiwari S/o Late Bansidhar Tiwari Aged About 35 Years R/o Ramanujganj, Ward No.9, P.S. And Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Appellants (Defendants No.1, 2 & 4) versus 1 - Smt. Sushila Mishra W/o Shri Pramod Mishra Aged About 42 Years R/o Ramanujganj, Ward No.9, P.S. And Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) (Plaintiff) 2 - Ajay Tiwari S/o Late Bansidhar Tiwari Aged About 38 Years R/o Ramanujganj, Ward No.9, P.S. And Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) (Defendant No.3) 3 - Smt. Savita Devi W/o Shri Krishan Kumar Sharma Aged About 44 Years R/o Ambikapur Nagar, C/o Narayan Store Deviganj Road, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) (Defendant No.5) 4 - Smt. Shobha Devi W/o Shri Murari Pandey Aged About 45 Years R/o Main Road Lakhanpur, Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Sarguja (C.G.) (Defendant No.6) 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.09.03 10:50:20 +0530 2 For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent No.1 For Respondents No.2, 3 & 4 For State/Respondent No.5 : : : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate None, though served Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 29/08/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The appellants/defendants have preferred this First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’) challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Second Upper District Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (CG) in Civil Suit No.15A/2023, whereby the learned trial Court allowed the civil suit filed by plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein for declaration of her title on 1/7th share of the suit property after getting it partitioned and granting possession on her share. [For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their status shown before the trial Court.] 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that both the parties are members of same family as plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 6 are brothers and sisters and defendant No.1 is their mother. As per pleading of the plaintiff, the suit property is an ancestral property of plaintiff and defendants, therefore, plaintiff has coparcenary right over the suit property. It has further been averred that despite of requests made by plaintiff, her share was not given by defendants, therefore, she filed civil suit for declaration of her title, permanent injunction, partition and possession of the suit properties. 4. Defendants/appellants herein filed written statement, in which, they did 3 not controvert the relationship between the parties and averred that the suit property is not an ancestral property. It is further stated that defendants No.1 to 4 got suit property in partition as per judgment and decree dated 23.06.2002 passed in Civil Suit No.6-A/2002 (Krishan Tiwari vs. Murlidhar Tiwari). They further stated that during lifetime of their father, family settlement was made regarding the share of the defendants and the plaintiff and defendants No.5 & 6 never demanded their share. Further, the plaintiff is not entitled for 1/7th share of the suit property, as it is not an ancestral property. 5. On the basis of pleading of both the parties, learned trial Court framed as many as 9 issues, recorded evidence adduced by both the parties and after considering the same, allowed the civil suit filed by plaintiff by entitling her to get 1/7th share of the suit property after getting partition of the same. Hence, this first appeal has been preferred by defendants No.1, 2 & 4/ appellants herein. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that plaintiff and defendants are family members i.e. brothers, sisters and mother and the suit property is an ancestral property of both the parties, therefore, he is not disputing 1/7th share of plaintiff, who is sister of defendants. He also submits that he is confining his argument and his appeal only to the extent that the plaintiff has declared suit property of Schedule A annexed with the plaint total 13 khasra/plots, total area 1.10 acres. But, vide impugned judgment and decree, learned trial Court has granted 1/7th share to the plaintiff on 1.76 acres area of total 13 khasra/plots, which is more than total area of the suit property mentioned in Schedule A. He further submits that he has no objection to grant 1/7th share of the suit property total 13 khasra/plots, total area 1.10 acres to 4 the plaintiff, therefore, he prays that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court may be modified to the extent of the suit property mentioned in Schedule A. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/plaintiff, who is main contesting party, submits that as per Schedule A annexed with the plaint, total Khasra/plot number of the suit property is 13 and total area is 1.10 acres. Therefore, the decree ought to have been granted up to that area only. But, learned trial Court has granted decree in favour of the plaintiff for 1.76 acres, which is more than area of the suit property. Therefore, he submits that he has no objection, if impugned judgment and decree is modified to the extent of total area of suit property i.e. 1.10 acres. 8. Learned State counsel submits that the State is formal party in instant appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Undisputedly, the suit property is an ancestral property of plaintiff and defendants and both the parties belong to the same family i.e. brothers, sisters and mother, as such, plaintiff is having coparcenary right over the suit property as per provision of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supeme Court in the matter of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma reported in [(2020) 9 SCC 1] which has further been followed in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sahoo vs. Charulata Sahoo reported in [(2023) 9 SCC 6]. 11. Having considered the aforesaid facts and law, learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in granting 1/7th share to the plaintiff over the suit property. 5 12. As per Schedule A annexed with the plaint, the suit property consists total 13 khasra/plots, total area 1.10 acres, but vide impugned judgment and decree, the trial Court has granted decree of 1.76 acres of total 13 khasra/plots, whereas total area of suit property is only 1.10 acres. Counsel for both the parties also have no objection to restrict the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court up to the total area of 1.10 acres of total 13 khasra/plots. 13. In view of above, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court that plaintiff is entitled to get 1/7th share of the suit property i.e. total 13 khasra/plots is upheld and impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is modified and restricted only to the extent of total area of the suit property i.e. 1.10 acres instead of 1.76 acres. In other words, the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/7th share of the total area of suit property i.e. 1.10 acres of total 13 khasra/plots. 14. With aforesaid modification, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is upheld and modified to the extent indicated herein-above and the instant appeal is disposed of accordingly. 15. Parties shall bear their own cost(s). 16. A decree be drawn up accordingly. 17. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar