1 Reserved on 10.02.2025 Pronounced on 22.04.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 166 of 2022 1. Sawantram Sahu S/o Faguwaram Sahu, aged about 51 years, R/o Lakholi, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District, Rajnandgaon, CG Appellant/Plaintiff versus 1. Dullorin Bai W/o Santram Sahu, aged about 55 years, R/o Shanti Nagar, Ward No. 11, Gali No. 03, Near Mandir, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon, CG 2. Keshrichand Jain S/o Shri Dharamchand Jain, aged about 36 years, R/o House No. 65, Ward No. 36, Kamla Madan Kunj, Sadar Bajar, Raghuweer Road, Rajnandgaon, CG. 3. Parasmal Jain S/o Shri Dharamchand Jain, aged about 31 years, R/o House No. 65, Ward No. 36, Kamla Madan Kunj, Sadar Bajar, Raghuweer Road, Rajnandgaon, CG. 4. State of Chhattisgarh through its Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, CG ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Ravi Kumar Bodhani, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 3 : Shri Siddharth Shukla, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Nand Kumari Kashyap, PL {Hon’ble (Smt.) Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput} CAV JUDGMENT Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J Parties shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 2. Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) is to the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2022 passed in Civil Suit No.01-A/2021 passed by Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon CG (for short ‘Trial Court’). 3. Facts in nutshell: The plaintiff and the defendant No.1 are the real brother and sister. Their father Faguwaram was the owner of the land measuring 0.405 2 hectare, Khasra No. 469/2 situate in village Lakholi, Rajnandgaon. After the death of Faguwaram mutation took place on 05.03.1998 and the land in dispute was recorded in the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records whereas by virtue of a mutual compromise, the defendant No.1 was given the land situate at village Chikhli with a house constructed thereon. Since 1998 itself plaintiff is in peaceful cultivating possession of the disputed land. Land in dispute is said to be the ancestral property and the same got registered in the name of the plaintiff by dint of an order dated 27.01.1999 passed in Revenue Case No. 185-A/2006 – 1998-99 and that the defendant No.1 was also aware of all this. It is worthwhile to mention here that in family partition, the plaintiff was given the suit property whereas the defendant No.1 was given the property situate at Shanti Nagar but even then the defendant No.1 got her name entered in the revenue record in respect of the suit property by the Tehsildar, Rajnandgaon after a lapse of 21 years. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the Sub Divisional officer (Revenue) also came to be dismissed on 21.12.2020 without assigning any reason. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff being in need of money for his treatment, for the business of his children and also for constructing a house, entered into an agreement with one Manish Khandelwal of Rajnandgaon in connection with sale of the suit land, and when the defendant No.1 came to know about this, she in connivance with defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and also using their political influence, she submitted an application for mutation before the concerned Tehsildar and by virtue of order dated 30.10.2019 the suit land got recorded in her name. Against the order dated 30.10.2019 the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the SDO (Revenue) but during the pendency of that appeal the defendant No.1 obtained the order from the Tehsildar dated 19.03.2020 and got the Fard Batwara pertaining to the suit land done in her favour, and in hot haste transferred the land of Khasra No. 469/16 area 0.50 acre/0.202 hectare and Khasra No. 460/17 area 0.02 acre/0.008 hectare, total Khasra 02, total area 0.52 acre/0.210 hectare (described in schedule 3 “B”) in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 without consideration. Against the order dated 19.03.2020, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the SDO (Revenue), which however has been rejected vide order dated 30.07.2021 without assigning any valid reason. Defendant No.1 is averred to be a cunning woman and was always trying to grab the land of the plaintiff, and that acting in connivance with defendant Nos. 2 and 3 she got the property detailed in “Schedule A” divided and then transferred the property detailed in “Schedule B” to defendant Nos. 2 and 3, though she had got her separate share at village Chikhli. 4. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 by filing their joint written statement have denied the plaint averments stating that after the death of Faguwaram, the plaintiff got the suit property detailed in “Schedule-A” recorded in his name in the revenue records without intimating to defendant No.1, and when this fact came to her knowledge she took steps for recording her name also in the capacity of co-owner along with the plaintiff. It is averred that the suit property contained in “Schedule-A” was never in the sole ownership of the plaintiff rather half portion thereof was in her ownership. Defendant No.1 has also denied the fact that the property detailed in “Schedule – B” was transferred in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 without consideration, rather the consideration received by her through cheque is stated to be Rs. 30,20,000/-. It is stated by defendant No.1 that to her knowledge no sale agreement was there between the plaintiff and one Manish Khandelwal with respect to the suit land of “Schedule- A” and even assuming that it was there, it cannot culminate into the sale deed because defendant No.1 being the co-owner thereof also had the right on half of that property, and therefore the plaintiff could not have rightfully sold the same off to anybody. It is denied that there was ever any partition between her and the plaintiff nor did she get any house as pleaded by the plaintiff. She has stated that being the legal heir of her father, she has taken steps for getting half of the share of the suit property of “Schedule-A”. The plea of publication of the objection in a newspaper 4 taken by the plaintiff in respect of the suit land of “Schedule-A” being sold off by defendant No.1 to defendant Nos.2 and 3, is said to be not within the knowledge of the defendant No.1. It is pleaded by the defendants that since the plaintiff has instituted the suit in order to harass them, he be made to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000/- to each of them. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- (I) Whether the property mentioned in schedule-A is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendant No.1? (ii) Whether the plaintiff acquired the disputed property mentioned in Schedule-A under a mutual compromise? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is the title-holder and possessor of the disputed property mentioned in schedule-A? (iv) Whether the sale deed in respect of the property mentioned in schedule-B executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 is not binding on the plaintiff? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction in respect of the property mentioned in Schedule-A and Schedule-B, against the defendants? 6. After hearing the parties, learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with cost. Hence this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the impugned judgment and decree is bad in law and contrary to the evidence led by the parties and therefore liable to be set aside. He submits that respondent/defendant No.1 is a mischievous lady who in connivance with the respondents/defendant No. 2 and 3 has always been trying to grab the property in share of the appellant/plaintiff. He further submits that even the respondents/defendants No. 2 and 3 are also very mischievous persons who are in the business of buying and selling the land who by influencing respondent/defendant No.1 got the land in dispute in their name that too without any consideration. He submits that the registered sale deed dated 30.09.2020 5 (Ex.P-1) in the name of respondents/defendants No. 2 and 3 is not binding upon the plaintiff and therefore it be declared null and void. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submits that the impugned judgment and decree is based on the just and proper appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses and therefore no interference is required with the same in this appeal. He submits that it is the appellant/plaintiff who got the land in dispute mutated in his name and when it came to her notice, she approached the revenue authorities and got her name recorded with regard to the disputed property. He submits that even the appeal against that preferred by the appellant/plaintiff before the SDO also came to be dismissed. 9. Though from the pleadings of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 the disputed property mentioned in schedule-A appears to be the ancestral property, the plaintiff has not produced any material to substantiate this fact. One of the qualifications for the property being the ancestral one is that prior to the plaintiff, it should have been recorded in the revenue records in the name of at least three generations. Since it has not been established by the parties whether before Faguwaram it was recorded in the name of his father and grandfather, learned trial Court has held the issue No.1 to be in negative. As regards issue No.2, the trial Court has recorded a finding that the relinquishment of her right by defendant No.1 by way of affidavit on a ten rupees stamp paper is in respect of the land of Sheet No. 77, Plot No. 66, area 13 sq. meter situate at village Lakholi which is not the land in dispute. Further a finding has been recorded that the said affidavit being not a registered one is of no significance in the eye of law. It has also been recorded by the trial Court that since the disputed property was the self acquired property of deceased Faguaram and that he had not executed any gift or will, it will be governed by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and therefore as defendant No.1 has been held to be a class-I heir, she is entitled for half of the share over the suit property. Being this, issue No.2 has also been held 6 to be in negative. As regards issue No.3, a finding has been recorded by the trial Court that since the disputed property was the self acquired property of deceased Faguaram, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are entitled for equal share thereof, and thus held this issue as not proved. As regards issue No. 4 which pertains to the sale deed dated 30.09.2020 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 after taking consideration amount having any binding effect on the plaintiff, has been found to be not proved. Likewise, issue No.5 regarding permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff over the disputed property has been held to be in negative. 10. From the analysis made above, it becomes apparent that the disputed property was the self acquired property of deceased Faguaram. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are the son and daughter of deceased Faguaram and thus are real brother and sister. Therefore, they being the son and daughter of deceased Faguaram are his legal heirs and being so the disputed property has to be governed by the provision of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Though the plaintiff has filed an affidavit (Ex.P-13) showing the “No Objection” of defendant No.1 if the property situate at Lakholi is recorded in the revenue records in the name of the plaintiff, the said affidavit is not with respect to the property in dispute and further that as this document is not a registered one, it has no legal sanctity. Even assuming that the defendant No.1 wanted to transfer her share of land to the plaintiff, it could be made effective only when it is done by executing sale deed, gift deed, relinquishment deed of by creating a will after payment of requisite registration fee as provided in the Registration Act, 1908. Thus the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff has failed to establish the relinquishment of her right by defendant No.1 over the disputed property, appears to be fully justified. While deciding issue No. 4 the learned trial Court gave a categorical finding that the property of schedule “B” was received by the defendant No. 1 after due partition by revenue Court after hearing the parties. This property of defendant No. 1 was sold by her to defendant 7 No. 2 & 3. Finding so arrived by the learned trial Court is based upon due appreciation of evidence. Likewise, the finding recorded by the trial Court with respect to other issues is also based on the due appreciation of the facts and evidence on record and therefore the it does not call for any interference in this appeal. 11. In the result, the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court being based on proper appreciation of the documents and evidence of the witnesses is hereby maintained. The appeal being without substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Decree be drawn accordingly. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Jyotishi