1 / 8 2025:CGHC:50852 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 76 of 2016 1. Anant Ram (Died) Through Lrs. 1.1 - Smt. Amita Panika W/o Ramkhilawan Panika Aged About 52 Years D/o Late Anant Ram, R/o Quarter No. M-313, Pump House Colony, Behind Swami Aatmanand School, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.) 1.2 - Ajay Kumar Mogre S/o Late Anant Ram, Aged About 45 Years R/o Indira Colony, Near Water Tank, Tarbahar, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Appellants/ Plaintiffs VERSUS • Raj Bai W/o Sonu Ram Padwar, Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Narmada Provision Stores, Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents/ Defendant For Appellants : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 13/10/2025 1. This is plaintiffs second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging legality and sustainability of the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.11.2015 passed by learned 9th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. in Civil Appeal No. 80-A/2015, arising out of judgment and decree dated 10.04.2015 passed by learned 7th Civil Judge (Class-II), Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 235A/2014 whereby learned first appellate court dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court. 2. Facts of the plaintiff’s case as projected in the plaint are that the plaintiff is owner of the suit house situated at Tarbahar, Bilaspur, located behind Indira Colony water tank. Plaintiff purchased this property in the year 1966 from Dilip, son of Dashrath Potdar, through a registered sale deed from his own PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 8 earnings. In the year 2000–2001, on the request of his relative defendant Rajbai, plaintiff permitted her to occupy one room of the suit house as a licensee, purely on trust. Despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff to vacate the said premises when required, the defendant failed to do so. Subsequently, upon issuance of a notice dated 13.12.2002, defendant denied the plaintiff’s ownership and asserted adverse claims over the property. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the Court of Fourth Civil Judge, Class-I, Bilaspur on 05.02.2004. Plaint was returned on 01.03.2011 for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction. Plaintiff thereafter filed a suit seeking eviction of the defendant from the suit premises and recovery of possession on the ground that the defendant’s right of occupation as a licensee has been lawfully terminated. 3. Defendant in her written statement, denied all the allegations made by the plaintiff and asserted that she is exclusive owner of the suit house mentioned in the plaint. According to the defendant, her father had purchased the suit house from joint Hindu family’s income. However, the sale deed for the said property could not be executed in his lifetime. After death of her father, plaintiff, being the head of the joint Hindu family, managed the family’s properties. During this period, plaintiff got the sale deed of the suit house executed in his own name, even though the property had actually been purchased from the joint family’s funds. The defendant further stated that, subsequently, all brothers in the family obtained their respective shares, constructed their own houses with their personal resources, and are residing separately. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim that he had given the suit house to the defendant on a license basis is false and baseless. The defendant contends that she is residing in her own property, and hence, the question of vacating the suit house does not arise. 4. Learned Trial Court on the basis of pleadings made therein, reply filed by the defendant, framed as many as five issues for consideration, recorded evidence of the parties and after considering the same, dismissed the civil 3 / 8 suits filed by the plaintiff holding therein that the plaintiff failed to prove his claim of mandatory injunction regarding possession of the house, on preponderance of probability on the basis of the evidence presented in the case, oral and documentary evidence. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was challenged before the first appellate court which also came to be dismissed affirming the judgment and decree of trial court. Hence, this second appeal. 5. Learned counsel for appellants-plaintiffs would submit that the Trial Court as also the first appellate court erred in dismissing the suit as also the appeal filed by appellant-plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove identity of the disputed property against which the suit was filed. He contended that the Trial Court has erroneously shifted burden upon the plaintiff to proof the facts as pleaded in the suit by way of oral evidence overlooking the documentary evidence placed in record vide Ext. P-1 which is sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff on 20.04.1966. Finding recorded by both the courts below are perverse to the evidence available on record. It is also contented that there is categorical pleading in the plaint that the defendant being relative (niece) of plaintiff was permitted to reside in the house when she shown her difficulty that she had not having any residence to reside in and therefore status of defendant is one of the licensee. The ownership of the plaintiff was disputed by the defendant in the year 2002 and thereafter the civil suit was filed. The finding of both the courts below that the plaintiff could not able to prove that the defendant was licencee is also contrary to the evidence available on record or it can be said that it is by misreading the evidence which is brought on record by the plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel for respondent-defendant opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the finding recorded by the courts below is on proper appreciation of the evidence brought on record. He also contended that document Ext. P-1 which is placed on record by the plaintiff/ appellant clearly mentioned that the sale deed executed in the year 4 / 8 1966, specific plea has been taken by the defendant that the property was purchased by the father of plaintiff from income of joint family property and therefore both, the father and defendant, were owner. During lifetime of father of defendant she resided in the suit accommodation till his death and along with him plaintiff also resided there. There is admission of plaintiff that he constructed the house on entire land purchased vide Ext. P-1, however, in his evidence he admitted that there is one passage/road between two accommodation constructed, one in which plaintiff is residing and other defendant is residing, which clearly shows that residential accommodation are two separate accommodations and not one and the same. There is no specific pleading in the plaint that the accommodation which is constructed by the plaintiff separately is given to defendant as licensee for her residence. In his evidence, plaintiff has admitted that there is separate electricity meter in the name of defendant and tap connection and further he is not depositing the municipal tax of the accommodation on which defendant is residing, which clearly shows that the defendant was not residing in the accommodation as licensee. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of trial court as well as appellate court. 8. Perusal of plaint would show that plaintiff in the plaint has made categorical pleading that the defendant came to him in the year 2000-01 stating him that she was not having any residential accommodation, the rented accommodation on which she was residing earlier, she was ousted and thereafter requested him to provide her shelter in his house stating that she would vacate the house after getting any another rented accommodation. It is also pleaded that relying upon the request and the statement made by defendant, he gave one room of his house to her. It is also pleaded that after 5 to 6 months she was asked to vacate the house to which she prayed for some extension. However, even after several request she did not vacate the 5 / 8 house and ultimately refused to vacate it. One legal notice was issued on 13.12.2002 though his advocate terminating the licence to which she replied disputing the license. It is also pleaded that on 05.02.2004 a civil suit was filed which was returned back vide order dated 01.03.2011 for filing it before the court of competent jurisdiction. From the pleading in the plaint, it is apparent that the defendant was in possession of the house, however the suit was not filed for the possession but for the permanent injunction and the relief is formulated as under. 9. Pleadings made in the civil suit filed by the plaintiff was denied by the defendant in written statement and it is pleaded that the disputed property is shown in the map as 12x35 sq.ft. as suit accommodation and further the defendant is raising construction over the open land. The map enclosed along with plaint is disputed and further pleaded that the accommodation was purchased in the year 1966. Land which was purchased vide Ext. P-1 is an abadi land which is specifically mentioned therein. The land was purchased by the father of plaintiff and the grandfather of defendant. Before getting the sale deed executed, Sukul Ram died and therefore being the elder member of the family property was registered in the name of plaintiff. However, possession over the suit land was joint of all the brothers. Both the brothers were in separate possession of part of disputed house. The suit is barred by limitation. Even after marriage, she some time used to reside in the matrimonial house and sometime with her parents at Bilaspur. She categorically disputed that she never made a demand from the plaintiff requesting her to give portion of the house for her residence. The other pleadings made in the plaint is also denied. It is also pleaded that the suit property was ancestral property and therefore she is having birth right over the suit property and also taken a plea that she became owner of the land by way of adverse possession. The objection is raised as the suit is not property valued. 6 / 8 10. Learned Trial Court upon appreciation of the pleadings, evidence on record by the respective parties framed as many as five issues for consideration and dismissed the suit observing that the plaintiff could not able to prove relationship of defendant to be one of the licensee and he is entitled to receive the possession of house through permanent injunction. The First appeal filed by appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree also came to be dismissed by impugned judgment and decree. 11. This appeal was admitted on 09.11.2022 on following substantial questions of law. “A. Whether, the appellant-plaintiff is the owner of the suit land? B. Whether, without claiming the title on the basis of adverse possession by the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to claim a decree of permanent injunction?” 12. Perusal of impugned judgment and decree and also judgment and decree by the trial court would show that the courts below have recorded that the plaintiff failed to prove his title and his relationship with defendant as licensee. Perusal of judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court would show that earlier the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for possession and eviction. That suit was returned back for filing it before the jurisdiction of competent court. However, the suit was not filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction and however another suit was filed on different grounds pleadings the status of defendant to be of the licensee. In plaint, plaintiff has pleaded that he gave permission to defendant to reside in one room of his house on her request in the year 2000-2001. There is no mention of specific date in the plaint, however, in admission he admitted that earlier to plaintiff his father was residing in the suit accommodation and thereafter plaintiff resided therein. He also admitted that father of defendant died while residing in the suit accommodation. 7 / 8 13. From the aforementioned evidence of plaintiff, it is apparent that the pleadings made in the plaint that defendant came to him in the year 2000-01 requested him to give portion of his house for residence is not correct in view of the admission made by plaintiff that the father of defendant was residing during his lifetime till his death and thereafter defendant started residing in the said accommodation. There is further evidence of plaintiff in para 12 & 13 of his deposition that there are two electricity meters and two tap connections from the municipal corporation. One of the electricity meter is installed in the name of defendant in the house in which she is residing and another meter is installed in the house in which plaintiff is residing and accordingly separate tap connections, one in the name of plaintiff and another of defendant. In the aforementioned paragraphs it is also admitted that tax receipt which is placed by him as Ext. P-6 is not a tax receipt of the suit accommodation in which the defendant is residing. He also stated that there is no permission of construction of portion of house in which defendant is residing. He also admitted that electricity charges and water charges are being paid by defendant which is installed in her house. This witness further admitted that there is passage/ road in between the houses of defendant and the plaintiff. 14. The aforementioned facts which are admitted in evidence has not been pleaded in the plaint in specific terms, however, there is pleading that in one of the room of the house plaintiff permitted the defendant to reside, which is contrary to the evidence which is led by plaintiff in para 26 of his deposition. 15. PW-2, Ram Khilawan Panika, also narrated the description of the property mentioning that the defendant is in the possession of house including land measuring 10x35 sq.ft. He also stated that there is passage/ road in between the houses of plaintiff and defendant. In para 7 of cross-examination, this witness stated that he is not aware about the occupation of father of Anant Ram but stated that father of Raj Bai was employed in railways. He also stated that the entire land, subject matter of sale deed area 33x45, three 8 / 8 persons are residing ie., Tirath Ram, Raj Bai and Anant Ram. He also admitted that Anant Ram is uncle of Raj Bai. This witness also admitted that father of Raj Bai died in the suit accommodation and last rites was also done from the said house. This witness stated that there is no document to show that the suit property was created by Anant Ram and in the year 1966 all the brothers were residing together. 16. PW-3, Thomas Anthony, in his evidence, stated that plaintiff is his father-in- law and his marriage was performed about 12 years ago. From evidence of this witness it is appearing that he is not aware of the facts and events which took place between the parties prior to his marriage. 17. Defendant also entered into the witness box and stated according to the pleadings made in the written statement. In her evidence, she stated about the place of posting of her father being a railway employee. She stated that Anant Ram and Tirath Ram were her uncles. They also were employees of railway department. The other two uncles, Milan and Santram died and they resided in the portion of house at Bilaspur. 18. From the aforementioned evidence available on record, it is appearing that plaintiff is owner and having title over part of suit property but he could not able to prove his case as pleaded in the plaint that the defendant was his licensee. 19. For the aforementioned discussion, as this Court has held that plaintiff failed to prove the relationship of defendant to be one of the licensee and therefore no separate finding is recorded with respect to question of law -B as framed by this Court. The question of law ‘A’ is decided in negative. 20. For the foregoing, I do not find any merit in this second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE