1 2025:CGHC:35672 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 278 of 2017 1. Reshamdev S/o Late Narendera Pal Singh, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Churikala, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Komeldev S/o Late Narendera Pal Singh, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Churikala, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. Ravindera Pal Singh S/o Late Narendera Pal Singh, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Churikala, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4. Vinay Pal Singh S/o Late Narendera Pal Singh, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Churikala, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5. Virendra Pal Singh S/o Late Narendera Pal Singh, Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Churikala, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ................Defendants, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Smt. Kewalya Kumari W/o Diwakar Singh, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Churikala, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Agni Kumari D/o Late Budhraj Singh, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Churikala, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ..............Plaintiffs, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. Rajni Minz W/o Jefirus Minz, Aged About 35 Years R/o Pandripani, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ...............Defendant No.1, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.09.30 16:15:05 +0530 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anant Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate along with Ms. Sakshi Mittal, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. K. Tripti Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment on Board 24.07.2025 1. The defendants have filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Katghora (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 20-A/2010 by which the learned appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Katghora (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 26- A/2009 by which the learned trial Court has partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 2. The parties have been described as per their description in Civil Suit No. 26A/2009. 3. This Court has admitted the second appeal on 21.02.2023 on following substantial question of law: “Whether finding of the Courts below upholding the registered deed of sale dated 31.03.2003, (Ex. D-9) executed by defendants 2 to 6 (Reshamdev, Komaldev, Ravindra Pal Singh, Vinay Pal Singh, Virendra Pal Singh) all sons of Narendra Pal Singh to defendant No. 1-Rajani Minz, only to the extent to their interest despite holding that the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are not applicable to them by virtue of sub-Section (2) of Sectison 2 of the said Act, 1956, is perverse?” 3 4. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that: (a) The plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 are widow of late Budhraj Singh and plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 are daughters of late Budhraj Singh filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Katghora (C.G.) for declaring the sale deed dated 31.03.2003 to be null and void and claimed title over the land situated at village Pandripani Patwari Halka No. 29, Rajasva Nirikshak Mandal and Tahsil - Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) is owned by the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 6 jointly. The suit property consists of total Khasra No. 33 total area admeasuring about 13.952 hectare. It is also the case of the plaintiff that from the said land, Khasra No. 348 area 0.955 hectare, Kharsa No. 349 area 0.040 hectare, Khasra No. 350 area 0.049 hectare, Khasra No. 351 area 0.049 hectare and Khasra No. 352 area 0.081 hectare total area 1.214 hectare (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”). The defendant No. 2 without consent of other joint shareholders sold the property through registered sale deed dated 31.03.2003 for sale consideration of Rs. 1,90,000/-. (b) It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1, on the basis of sale deed has also recorded their names in the revenue records and against that he has preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer Katghora which has also been rejected and thereafter, he has preferred an appeal before the Collector which has also been rejected. On this factual position he has prayed for declaration of the sale deed dated 31.03.2003 to be null and void and also claimed title on the suit property. 4 (c) The defendants No. 2 to 6 have filed their written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and also filed counter claim mainly contending that it has denied that the suit property belongs to plaintiff and defendants jointly, as such, the plaintiff has no right to challenge the sale deed which has been executed on 31.03.2003. In the counter claim, it has been stated that late Budhraj Singh who is ancestral of defendants No. 2 to 6 has expired in the year 1974 and left the suit property situated at village Pandrapani, Chhuri, Dhuripakhna Solora and Kishunpur on the principle of survival-ship. (d) It is also the case of the defendants that Budhraj Singh has two wives, one is Chamarin Bai and second wife is Satya Bhanumati. Chamarin Bai has expired in the year 1950 and with their wedlock one son namely Narendra Pal Singh was born. The defendants No. 2 to 6 are legal heirs of Narendra Pal Singh. It is also the case of the defendants No. 2 to 6 that Budhraj Singh Kanwar belongs to Scheduled Tribes, therefore, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in short “Act of 1956”) is not applicable to them. It is also the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs have neither indefeasible right to hold the property nor genealogy has been pleaded to claim their share in the suit property. It has also been contended that Devendra Kunwar is unsound mind therefore, he has no right to get the title over the suit property and since they are legally entitled to hold the property, therefore, their name have been rightly recorded in the revenue records. On these pleadings, it has been contended that plaintiff has no right of title over the suit 5 property and prayed for dismissal of the suit as well as prayed for allowing the counter claim and the plaintiff be kindly restrained from interfere in the peaceful possession of the suit property described in Schedule A of the counter claim. (e) The plaintiff has filed reply to counter claim denying that the Act of 1956 is not applicable to them and the plaintiff have right to hold the property as per the Act of 1956. It is also the case of the plaintiff is that it is denied that the information regarding mutation in the said property was known to them before the year 1975 and in fact the said mutation has been done without following due process of law, as such, nullity in the eye of law and prayed for rejection of the counter claim. (f) On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court has framed as many as 6 issues, they are extracted below as under: “1- D;k izfroknh Ø- 2 ls 6 dks oknHkwfe ds foØ; dk iw.kZ vf/kdkj gS\ 2- D;k okn Hkwfe ds laca/k esa izfroknh Ø- 1 ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr foØ; i= fnukad 31-03-2003 voS/k gS\ 3- D;k izfroknh Ø- 1 ls 6 okn Hkwfe ds laca/k eas oknh x.k ds fo:) LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 4- D;k i{kdkjksa ij fgUnw mRrjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e 1956 izHkko’khy gS\ 5- D;k cq/kjkt flag dh e`R;q i'pkr fookfnr laifRr;k oknh x.k dks mRrjkf/kdkj esa izkIr gqvk Fkk\\ 6- lgk;rk ,oa vuqrks"k\” 5. The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence and material on record, has dismissed the suit, but counter claim filed by the defendants No. 1 to 6 has been partly allowed vide its judgment and decree dated 27.10.2010. The learned trial Court while partly 6 allowing the counter claim has directed for restraining the plaintiffs to interfere in the peaceful possession of the property which is in possession and purchased by the defendants bearing Khasra No. 348, 349, 350, 351 and 352 total admeasuring 1.214 hectare. The learned trial Court while deciding the issue No. 4 has recorded its finding that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is not applicable, but old Hindu law will applicable. Learned trial Court has recorded its finding though the plaintiff and defendants belongs to Kanwar Community which is tribal and as per law on this subject the Tribal are not governed by Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It has recorded its finding while deciding the issue No. 5 that all the property of Budhraj Singh which has been described in Schedule A of counter claim, the plaintiff, defendants No. 2 to 6 alongwith Lalita and Mamta has succession right and accordingly, it has answered the issue No. 5 in positive in favour of the plaintiff. 6. Being aggrieved with judgment and decree dated 27.10.2010, the defendants have preferred first appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned first appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 27.09.2016 has dismissed the appeal. The learned first appellate Court while dismissing the appeal has recorded its finding that as per the Article 15 of the Constitution of India, no difference on the basis of sex is permissible and son and daughter being natural child of their father, therefore, son and daughter are having equal right to inherit the property from her father on the basis of natural justice and equity. It has also recorded its finding that the property described in Schedule A is belongs to Budhraj Singh and his son is Narendra Singh and defendants No. 2 7 to 6 are daughters of Narendra Singh and the plaintiffs are daughters of plaintiff No. 2 and 3 are daughters of Budhraj, therefore, the plaintiff Smt. Keval Kumari, Agni Kumari, Lalia Bai and Mamta Bai and defendants No. 2 to 6 are joint owners of the suit property described in the Schedule A of the plaint and this finding are legal, justified and does not warrant interference. It has also rejected the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC filed by the appellants which is a copy of the order issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh dated 19.11.1995 according to which it has been held that for Raigarh district’s Tribal’s daughter’s name should not be recorded in the revenue records. Since it is not law accordingly, it has rejected the same. Consequently the first appeal has also been dismissed. 7. The appeal has been admitted on the aforesaid substantial question of law. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the findings of both the Courts below that since the plaintiffs and defendants belong to Kanwar community, therefore, provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is not applicable to them, as such, finding recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the learned appellate Court that the plaintiffs and defendants are joint owner of ancestral property described in the Schedule A of the plaint are illegal. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned first appellate Court has committed illegality while dismissing the appeal has also rejected the application for additional evidence on record which was for taking document issued by the erstwhile Government of Madhya Pradesh with 8 regard to declaration of woman’s right over the property and has stated that the Tribal woman are not entitled to inherit the property of husband of Raigarh district. Thus, this document was relevant for adjudication of the case, therefore, first appellate Court should have allow this application and the document should have been taken on record and would pray for allowing the appeal. 9. Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal and Ms. K. Tripti Rao, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the provisions of law, particularly the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 prior to its enactment there is Act of 1937 which also provides that the widow woman has right to inherit the property though for a limited purposes and after enactment of Act of 1956, the provisions have been inserted by granting the absolute right of widow woman to hold the property, as such, he would submit that the substantial question of law deserves to be answered against the defendants and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. He would submit that by the letter of State Government, the legal position cannot be changed or diluted or modified. It is domain of the Parliament so far as Central Act legislation and for the State, the State legislation, henceforth, the first appellate court has not committed any illegality in allowing application for taking additional evidence on record as this document has no legal sanctity in the eyes of law and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of both the Courts below with utmost circumspection. 11. The submission made by the appellant and defendants that since 9 the parties before the trial Court are Tribal, therefore, they are not governed by the Hindu Law, as such, daughters are not entitled to inherit the ancestral property is liable to be rejected as very recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ram Charan & Others vs. Sukhram & Others in Civil Appeal No. 9537 of 2025 has considered the issue with regard to right of the daughter who belongs to Tribal to inherit the property has taken into consideration the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 though the said Act has been repealed in the year 2018 but the effect of Section 4 of repealing Act, it is quite vivid that no right having been accrued prior to the repeal of the Act shall be affected thereby and the record of the case demonstrates that the parties to the instant lis are neither governed by Hindu nor Muslim laws and, therefore, would be covered by Section 6 of the 1875 Act. So, the right having been accrued in favour of the plaintiffs’ mother upon the death of her husband, which was approximately 30 years before the filing of the plaint became crystallized and would not be affected by the fact that the Act was no longer in the statute book. This Act is applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case with full force. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ram Charan(supra) has held in paragarphs 26 to 28 as under: “26. This discussion on equality under Article 14, which, needless to state, includes the aspect of gender equality within its fold will be, in our view, incomplete without reference to the first and most commendable step taken under the Hindu Law by way of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 which made daughters the coparceners in joint family property. The object and reasons as stated in the Bill are instructive in the general sense and we reproduce the same with profit : “…The law by excluding the daughter from participating in the coparcenary ownership not only 10 contributes to her discrimination on the ground of gender but also has led to oppression and negation of her fundamental right of equality guaranteed by the Constitution. having regard to the need to render social justice to women, the States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra have made necessary changes in the law giving equal right to daughters in Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary property. The Kerala Legislature has enacted the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975…” (Emphasis supplied) 27. Similarly, we are of the view that, unless otherwise prescribed in law, denying the female heir a right in the property only exacerbates gender division and discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out. 28. Granted that no such custom of female succession could be established by the appellant-plaintiffs, but nonetheless it is also equally true that a custom to the contrary also could not be shown in the slightest, much less proved. That being the case, denying Dhaiya her share in her father’s property, when the custom is silent, would violate her right to equality vis-à-vis her brothers or those of her legal heirs vis-à-vis their cousin.” 12. From the factual matrix as projected by the plaintiff and defendants and considering the provisions of law, it is quite vivid that the issue raised in this appeal is squarely covered from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ram Charan (Supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that daughters are entitled to inherit the ancestral property, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 and defendants No. 2 to 6 are joint owner of the suit property as affirmed by the first appellate Court are legal, justified and the substantial question of law framed by this Court deserves to be answered against the appellants and does not suffer from perversity. 13. The learned first appellate Court has also not committed illegality in rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC as the document which defendants intend to place on record is not 11 relevant for just and property adjudication of the case, therefore, this rejection is also held to be legal justified warrants no interference by this Court. The appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs. 14. The interim order passed by this Court on 21.02.2023 is vacated. 15. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish