1 2025:CGHC:20414 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 12 of 2020 • Ramgovind S/o Late Dadhiwaman Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Gadahabhantha, Tahsil Basna , District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.....(Defendant No. 01) ... Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Lalit W/o Gauishankar Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Jharmuda, Tahsil Pithaura, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2. Pravin Sahu S/o Bhishmdev Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Gadahabhantha, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh …........(Plaintiffs) 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ….....(Defendant No. 02) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 3 : : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05/05/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned judgment dated 04.12.2019 (Annexure P/1) of maintaining the order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II Basna, District Mahasamund in Civil Suit No. 12-A/2017, and may grant relief as prayed in the appeal filed by the petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of C.P.C. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. The original plaintiff Smt. Kamla Bai filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC pertaining to Survey No. 10 area 4.15 hectares situated at Village Gadahabhanta, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund inter alia on the ground that the suit land was recorded in the joint names of Smt. Kamla Bai and her brother late Khageshwar. After the death of her brother, defendant No. 1 was trying to disturb her peaceful possession. The learned trial Court allowed the application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC vide order dated 15.12.2017. The petitioner/defendant No.1 preferred an appeal along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and it was dismissed vide order dated 04.12.2019. 3. Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner/defendant No. 1 is in possession of the suit property and this fact was established before the learned Court below and there is a will deed in his favour, therefore, the orders passed by the Courts below may be set aside. 4. Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel appearing for respondent 1 and Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.3 would oppose. 5. Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 would submit that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property and sufficient material was placed before the learned trial Court, therefore, the order of temporary injunction was passed in their favour. He would contend that 3 the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Admittedly, the suit property was recorded in the name of the original plaintiff namely Smt. Kamla Bai and her brother namely Khageshwar. Khageshwar died issueless on 06.12.2010 and the entire property was recorded in the name of Smt. Kamla Bai. The order of mutation was passed in favour of defendant No.1 on the basis of the unregistered will deed. The petitioner has claimed right over the suit property on the basis of the unregistered will deed. The petitioner has to prove the genuineness of the will deed by leading evidence according to the provisions of Sections 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and 63 of the Indian Successions Act. At this stage, no right has accrued in favour of the petitioner over the property by virtue of the will deed and further, the property was recorded in the revenue records in the name of Smt. Kamla Bai. 8. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, no case is made out for interference. 9. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No Costs. However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the case. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti