1 2025:CGHC:45750 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on : 21.8.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 09.9.2025 SA No. 81 of 2020 1 - Tej Pal Singh S/o Harawansh Singh Aged About 60 Years R/o Shiv Talkies Chowk, Tikra Para, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant/Plaintiff versus 1 - Smt. Sewa Kaur W/o Shri Harawansh Singh Aged About 83 Years R/o Shiv Talkies Chowk, Tikra Para, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No.1) 2 - Paramjeet S/o Harawansh Singh Aged About 58 Years R/o Shiv Talkies Chowk, Tikra Para, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No.2), 3 - Balbeer Alias Boby S/o Harawansh Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o Shiv Talkies Chowk, Tikra Para, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant No.3) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ravish Verma, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Kajal Chandra, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) C A V Judgment 1. The appellant/plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (for short ‘the CPC’), against the judgment and decree dated 20.9.2019 passed by learned BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.09.09 16:59:01 +0530 2 Second Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.23A/2019, upholding judgment and decree passed by the 5th Civil Judge Class-2, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 117A/2014 dated 14-11-2018 (Tej Pal Singh Vs. Smt. Sewa Kaur and Others), whereby civil suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his title and grant of permanent injunction has been rejected. (Hereinafter, parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court) 2. Facts of the case in brief, are that, both the parties belong to same family and defendant No.1 is the mother of plaintiff and defendants No. 2 and 3. Between the years 1979-1988, the plaintiff was working abroad in Merchant Navy, and during this time he used to send money to his parents from time to time. Since 1988, plaintiff has been residing in his house at Shiv Talkies Chowk, Bilaspur. It is averred that in April, 1980, the plaintiff sent 1400 USD to defendant No.1 to purchase the house and land bearing Patwari Halka No. 110, Khasra No.210, Bilaspur admeasuring 6900 sqft. in the name of defendant No.1, fore- corner map of which is attached with the plaint. Out of the purchased property, defendant No.1 Smt. Sewa Kaur alienated area admeasuring 2016 sqft. by executing a registered sale deed dated 26.10.1994 in name of Rajedra Kumar and Kamal Jeet Ajmani. Since defendant No.1 has alienated the said area of 2016 sqft., the plaintiff confined his right to the extent of area admeasuring 4884 sqft. and the property comprised therein (hereinafter referred as “suit property”). It is further averred that the plaintiff was employed in Merchant Navy, who used to 3 send money to his parents via demand draft and from that money, father of plaintiff purchased the suit property in the name of defendant No.1 (mother of plaintiff) through a registered sale deed dated 20.6.1980/ 21.6.1980 (Ex.P12). The plaintiff, being abroad, used to send letters to his parents and in those letters also it is mentioned that plaintiff has sent money to his parents for purchasing the suit property. It is further averred that after the death of father of plaintiff, when the issue of ownership of the suit property arose, defendants No.2 and 3 started claiming their share. Whereas defendant No.1 had no independent source of income and the suit property was purchased from the earnings of plaintiff alone, as such, he is the owner of the same and only being a family member, defendants used to reside in the said suit property and they do not have right to ask share in the suit property. After getting retired from his service in the year 1988, plaintiff came to Bilaspur and while residing in the suit property, he started business of tailoring. When plaintiff asked defendant No.1 to execute the suit property in his name, she did not do the same and supported defendants No.2 & 3, which compelled the plaintiff to file instant civil suit. 3. Defendants filed their reply denying the substantive averments raised by the plaintiff and stated inter-alia that when defendant No.1 sold the part of the property to Mr. Ajwani, admeasuring area 1500 sq.ft., plaintiff did not raise any objection at that time, though the said fact was within the knowledge of the plaintiff. It is further averred that the plaintiff sent the money to defendant No.1 in the shape of financial 4 help and not for purchasing of the suit property. It is also stated that in the year 1980, value of 1 USD was ₹7.19/-, so the value of 1400 USD was equal to ₹10,080/-, however the entire property was purchased in ₹18,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 20.6.1980 (Ex.P12), as such, the suit property cannot be purchased from the amount sent by the plaintiff, rather defendant No.1 purchased the suit property from her savings and with the financial help of her brother. It is further averred that the suit was barred by limitation as the fact about purchasing the suit property, in name of defendant No.1, was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff and after coming to Bilaspur in the year 1988, he did not raise any objection, as such, dispute with regard to the suit property was since 1988, but, after 23 years, the suit was filed. 4. Learned trial Court framed as many as 6 issues on the basis of pleadings of both the parties and provided them opportunity to adduce evidence. After appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 14.11.2018, dismissed the civil suit filed by the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit property is his self-acquired property and it was purchased from the money i.e. 1400 USD sent by him to defendant No.1. 5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred civil appeal No.23A/2019 before the Second Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.9.2019 warranting no interference in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court against which, the instant second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff. 5 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that both the Courts below have erred concurrently in holding that the suit property was not purchased with the money sent by him and the same is not the self- acquired property of the plaintiff. He would further submit that at the age of 19-20 years, plaintiff left Bilaspur and went to Mumbai where he was working along with his maternal uncle. After about one year he started serving in Merchant Navy, as such, he was earning in dollars. He would next submit that in the year 1980, plaintiff had sent 1400 USD through demand draft dated 08, April, 1980 in the name of his mother Smt. Sewa Kaur (defendant No.1) to purchase the suit property, which is also reflected from various letters written by father and brother of plaintiff. He would also submit that defendants have failed to prove that they were having any independent source of income to purchase the suit property worth ₹18,000/-. Though defendant No.3 Paramjeet Singh (DW1) has deposed that there was a sawmill in the name of his father Harwansh Singh, but, no document like license, etc. has been filed, thus, there is no evidence on record to prove financial status of defendants to purchase the suit property, which shows that suit property was purchased from the money sent by plaintiff to his mother Smt. Sewa Kaur, but, both the Courts below without properly appreciating the evidence available on record have dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff, hence, he prayed that instant appeal may be allowed and decree may be granted in favour of plaintiff by allowing the suit filed by him. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would support the impugned judgment and oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. She would submit that though on 08 6 April, 1980, plaintiff had sent 1400 USD through demand draft (Ex.P13) to defendant No.1, but, at that time, value of 1400 USD was about ₹10,080/- as has been held by learned trial Court also. Further that money was sent by the plaintiff to financially help the family. She would further submit that suit property was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 20.6.1980 for sale consideration of ₹18,000/-, thus, it is very clear that the suit property could not have been purchased from the amount sent by plaintiff. She would also submit that defendants used to run saw mill in the name of husband of defendant No.1 Smt. Sewa Kaur and they also have other sources of income. Defendant No.1 had brought money also from her brother to purchase the suit property. Hence, only because plaintiff had sent 1400 USD, it cannot be held proved that suit property was purchased with that amount, hence, dismissing civil suit filed by plaintiff by the trial Court and upheld by first Appellate Court does not call for any interference of this Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court meticulously. 9. The instant second appeal has been admitted vide order dated 20.9.2024 on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the first appellate Court was justified in upholding the finding recorded by the trial Court that the plaintiff has failed to prove that sale consideration of the suit property has been paid from the money given by the plaintiff to his mother?” 7 10. A perusal of the pleadings of the defendants and evidence of plaintiff Tejpal singh (PW-1) and his witnesses Jalim Singh (PW-2) and Pravind Kumar Khare (PW-3), it has been proved that in the year 1979- 80, the plaintiff was working in Merchant Navy and in the month of April 1980, he had sent 1400 USD to his mother Smt. Sewa Kaur (defendant No.1). Though defendant No.2 Paramjeet has deposed that such amount was not received by his mother, but defendant No.1 Smt. Sewa Kaur herself has not entered into the witness box and on the basis of power of attorney executed by her in favour of defendant No.2 Paramjeet, he has stated aforesaid fact. But since Smt. Sewa Kaur has not entered into witness box and she has specifically admitted in her pleading that the plaintiff had sent her 1400 USD, therefore, only on the strength of baseless statement of Paramjeet, it cannot be said that the said amount was not received by defendant No.1 Sewa Kaur. Further, sending and receiving of aforesaid amount also got support from letters Ex-P/22 , P/23, P/24 and P/25 written by father of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 & 3 and husband of defendant No.1 Harwansh Singh to the plaintiff. As such, both the Courts below have not erred in holding that 1400 USD was sent by the plaintiff to his mother/defendant No.1 in April 1980. 11. In the year 1980, value of 1400 USD was about Rs.11,000/- in Indian currency and the suit property was purchased in the name of defendant No.1 vide registered sale deed (Ex-P/12)(certified copy) for sale consideration of Rs.18,000/-. Thus, it is evident that the suit property could not have been purchased with 1400 USD sent by the 8 plaintiff. In this regard letter Ex-P/22 written by father of the plaintiff to him shows that while purchasing the suit property, plaintiff’s father Harwansh Singh had brought Rs.15,000/- from Kashmira Singh, maternal uncle (mama) of the plaintiff and further as per the deposition of the defendant Paramjeet Singh, they were running sawmill in the name of their father Harwansh Singh. Even otherwise, being father (Karta) of the family, Harwansh Singh was maintaining his wife and children, therefore, it cannot be said that he was not having any source of income. Having considered aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that the suit property was purchased from the amount (1400 USD) sent by the plaintiff to his mother. 12. Though in the letters Ex-P/22 to P/25, father of the plaintiff had written him that the suit property be purchased in the name of the plaintiff, but looking to the complications, it was purchased in the name of Smt. Sewa Kour (defendant No.1), but only on this count, it cannot be held that the suit property was purchased from the amount (1400 USD) sent by the plaintiff. Rather, it appears from the evidence that financial status of the family of the parties was not very good and the plaintiff was earning member working in Merchant Navy, therefore, he used to send money for maintaining his parents and siblings. 13. As per the evidence available on record, father of the plaintiff Harwansh Singh had brought Rs.15,000/- from the maternal uncle of the plaintiff while purchasing the suit property and he was also running a sawmill. In such situation, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the finding recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the first appellate 9 Court that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit property was purchased from the amount of Rs.1400 USD sent by him to his mother. Aforesaid issue has been considered by both the Courts below in detail, which does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. Hence, question of law framed above is answered in affirmative, i.e. in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. 14. Accordingly, this appeal being sans substratum, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 15. A decree be drawn accordingly. 16. Records of both the Courts below be returned forthwith. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ayushi/Bini