2025:CGHC:61181 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 106 of 2014 M/s Rungta Rice Mill A Partnership Firm, Through Its Partner Alok Rungta, S/o Ram Avtar Rungta, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Ramadhin Marg, Rajnandgaon, P.S. City Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant/ Plaintiff versus 1 - Kamal Narayan Rungta S/o Late Gajadhar Prasad Rungta Aged About 70 Years R/o Ganjpara, Durg, P.S City Kotwali, District Durg Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents /Defendants (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Shri Ashish Surana, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Kalpesh Ruparel, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 21.11.2025 1. This appeal under Section 96 of the CPC has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.04.2014, passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, District- Rajnandgaon, CG, in Civil Suit No.38A/2012, whereby, the Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed. 2. Plaintiff is one of the partners in partnership firm M/s Rungta Rice Mill, having its Head office at Ramadhin Marg, Rajnandgaon. The firm has three partners, namely, Ram Avtar Rungta, Amit Rungta, and Alok Rungta. On Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.12.17 12:26:48 +0530 Fa 106 of 2014 2 03.01.2011, the plaintiff firm has filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title that the suit land described in para-3 of the plaint, situated at village- Mohara, Tahsil and District- Rajnandgaon is under ownership of the plaintiff firm. The plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that for establishment of Rice Mill, late Gajadhar Prasad Rungta had purchased the suit lands through registered sale deed on 15.09.1948, and after purchase of some other lands, he started rice mill, and paddy business. Defendant-1, who was also doing business in name of a firm of joint family, was made a partner in the rice mill of late Gajadhar Prasad Rungta, and he adopted him also. The said firm of late Gajadhar was reorganized, and then Madan Lal Rungta, Ramesh Chand Rugta and Ramavtar Rungta had entered in the firm as partners. Thereafter, the firm was reorganized from time to time. After separation from the firm by Kamal Narayan Rungta, he started residing in Durg. The property purchased by late Gajadhar Prasad Rungta, and Kamal Narayan Rungta was brought in the firm as capital of the partners, and it was not owned by any individual member of the firm. Except the land mentioned in para-3 of the plaint, other lands had been mutated in name of M/s Rungta Rice Mill. In the year 2008, they came to know that the suit lands are still recorded in name of defendant-1, though it was in possession and within the possession boundary wall of M/s Rungta Rice Mill. The plaintiff filed an application before the Tahsildar, Rajnandgaon for mutation of their name but the said application was rejected on 19.07.2010 on the ground that defendant-1 has not executed any deed in favour of the plaintiff firm. Therefore, present suit has been filed. 3. Defendant-1, after service of notice, has not filed any written statement, and his right to file written statement was forfeited by the learned trial Court vide order dated 11.07.2011. Fa 106 of 2014 3 4. Defendant-2/State has filed its written statement, and pleaded that the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff-firm, or from the income of the firm. There is no document with respect to acquisition of the firm by the plaintiff over the suit lands. The suit was under-valued, and no proper Court fees was paid, and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of pleadings made by the parties, learned trail Court has framed the following issues: okniz’u fu"d"kZ 1- D;k] oknh oknHkwfe dk Lokeh ,oa vkf/kiR;/kkjh gS \ izekf.kr ugha 2- D;k] nkos dk mfpr ewY;kdau fd;k tkdj mfpr U;k;’kqYd vnk fd;k x;k gS \ gk¡ 3- lgk;rk ,o O;; \ vkns’kkuqlkj 6. In support of his claim, plaintiff has examined one Amit Rungta as PW1, and relied upon the document Ex.P1, which is the registration details of partnership firm, Ex.P2- Patwari map of the suit land, Ex.P3- Khasra Panchnama, Ex.P4- sketch map, Ex.P5- sale deed executed in favour of late Gajadhar Prasad Rungta, dated 15.09.1948, and Ex.P6-affidavit dated 24.01.85, executed by Kamal narayan, Ex.P7- Revenue order-sheet. The defendant has not led any evidence in the case. 7. After considering the documentary, as well as oral evidence led by the plaintiff, learned trial Court has come into conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title over the suit property by producing sufficient documentary evidence. Learned trial Court has also considered that as per the document Fa 106 of 2014 4 Ex.P5, land was purchased by late Gajadhar Prasad Rungta,father of defendant-1, and the revenue entries in the document Ex.P3, it is recorded in name of defendant-kamal Narayan Rungta. There is no document filed by the plaintiff-firm to show that Kamal Narayan Rungta has executed any deed in favour of the plaintiff-firm, or it has acquired any right or title over the said suit land through any transfer deal, nor any deed with respect to the property of the firm. Although the plaintiff has claimed that he is in possession of the suit land since more than 50 years, however, he has not claimed the ownership, and title on the basis of adverse possession, and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial Court, which is under challenge in this first appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that learned trial court has erred in facts of law, while passing the impugned judgment, and the learned trial Court should have considered that defendant-1 has remained ex-parte , and has not denied the plaint averments, which amounts to admission of the claim of the plaint. Earlier, late Gajadhar Prasad Rungta, father of defendant-1 started the partnership firm to carry the business of partnership, and purchased the suit land on 15.09.1948, and the said partnership firm continued till filing of the suit, and the property purchased by the late Gajadhar Prasad Rungta was made as capital of the firm. Therefore, even if there is no specific document with respect to surrendering the suit lands to the plaintiff-firm, from the evidence of plaintiff duly proved the long possession of the plaintiff-firm over the suit land, and in document Ex.P4, which is the sketch map, it is also established that the rice-mill of the plaintiff-firm is situated over the suit land. Defendant-1, or his father late Gajadhar Prasad Rungta never claimed possession over the suit property. He would also submit that under the Indian Fa 106 of 2014 5 Partnership Act, or Registration Act, it would not be necessary to execute any register deed to bring the property as capital in the partnership-firm. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be interfered, and the appeal may be allowed. 9. Despite service of notice, no one appears on behalf of respondent-1. 10. Learned counsel for respondent-2 would submit that the question of title of the private parties is subject matter of the suit, which has been decided by the learned trial Court, and the State is a formal party. 11. The question for determination in the present appeal would be, whether the plaintiff has proved his title over the suit land, and has produced sufficient evidence to grant decree in his favour for declaration of his title. 12. Claim of the plaintiff in the present suit is that in the year 1948, late Gajadhar Prasad Rungta purchased the suit land, and started rice mill business, by organizing the partnership-firm. He established the rice-mill over the suit land, which continued till date. Although the land was recorded in name of late Gajadhar Prasad Rungta, and after his death, same was mutated in name of defendant-1, however, the fact remains that from the document Ex.P4, it appears that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land, and rice-mill is situated over it. So far as the transfer of title, and claim of title are concerned, the title of the immovable property can be transferred only in the manner provided under the law. 13. The valid mode of transfer of immovable property of more than Rs.100/- is provided under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short, ‘TP Act’), i.e. by Fa 106 of 2014 6 sale, exchange, or gift. Section 54 of the TP Act provides for ‘Sale’ under which the property of more than Rs.100/- can be transferred only by way of a registered sale deed, and the property of less than Rs.100/- may be transferred by registered instrument or delivery of the property. Section 118 of the TP Act provided for ‘Exchange’, according to which, when two persons mutually transfer the ownership of one thing for the ownership of another, neither thing, or both things being money only the transaction is called an exchange, and the transfer of property by way of exchange can be made only in the manner provided for the transfer of property by sale. The third mode of transfer of property is ‘Gift’, which is provided under Section 122 of the TP Act. The gift should be given by one person to another voluntarily, and without consideration, and it should be accepted by the donee. Section 123 of the TP Act provided that the gift of immovable property must be affected by a registered instrument, or by delivery in the same way as the goods sold may be delivered. There is no instrument in favour of the plaintiff that gives him title to the subject property. 14. Undisputedly, the plaintiff could not file any evidence or document, which shows that either late Gajadhar Prasad Rungta, or defendant-1 had executed any document in favour of the plaintiff-firm to transfer their title over the suit property. Merely establishing the rice Mill over the suit land does not make the plaintiff its title holder. Even if defendant-1 has not claimed possession over it. The consideration of learned trial court is mainly on the basis that late Gajadhar had purchased the suit lands on 15.09.1948, through registered sale deed Ex.P5, and thereafter, the land was recorded in the name of defendant-1 which reflects from Ex.P3. Since the plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration for declaration of title over the suit property, burden is upon the plaintiff to prove Fa 106 of 2014 7 their title over the suit land. There is no any document of transfer of title of the suit land in their favour. Even, there is no details of the property of the firm, or capital of the firm which shows that the property belongs to late Gajadhar Prasad Rungta, and defendant-1 Kamal Narayana is the capital of the partnership-firm/plaintiff, whereas in the document Ex.P3, which is Khasra Panchshala of the year 2011-12, the suit land is recorded in the name of defendant-1, as title holder of the property. It is not the case of plaintiff that they perfected their title by the doctrine of adverse possession, and there is no evidence that the property belong to the plaintiff-firm. 15. PW1 – Amit Rungta has also admitted in cross-examination of his evidence that the suit land is recorded in name of defendant-1 in revenue record, and they have not filed any appeal against the order passed by the Tahsildar. 16. Since the plaintiff has failed to prove the acquisition of right, and title over the suit property, through any valid deed, or transfer, as provided under the TP Act, it cannot be held that the plaintiff is title holder of the suit land. 17. So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant that defendant-1 has not participated in the proceeding, and has not filed his written statement which amounts to admission of fact but in the present case defendant-2 has filed written statement, and denied the claim of the plaintiff for which issues have been framed, and the learned trial Court has proceeded to record evidence of the parties. When the title of the plaintiff has been denied by one of the defendants, it is for the plaintiff to prove the title by producing sufficient evidence as required under the law. However, the plaintiff has failed Fa 106 of 2014 8 to prove his title over the suit land by producing sufficient documentary evidence. 18. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any perversity, or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree, passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 19. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 20. Parties to bear their own costs. A decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma