1 2025:CGHC:54734 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 64 of 2010 1 - Pandit Ram S/o Kadam Ram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Temar, Tahsil Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ram Narayan S/o Kadam Ram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Temar, Tahsil Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Badra Bai Dead Through Lrs 3.1 - Rajendra Kumar Patel S/o Mannu Ram Patel Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Pali Naila Post Seoni, Tahsil- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh --- appellant(s) versus 1 - Tija Bai W/o Chunnu Lal @ Jhalboo Lal Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Temar Sodi, Tahsil- Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Collector, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) FA No. 83 of 2010 1 - Tija Bai Wd/o Chunnulal @ Jhabboolal, Aged About 55 Years By Caste Patel, Resident Of Village And Post - Temar / Sonthi, Tahsil Sakti, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.12.17 11:48:29 +0530 2 ---appellant(s) Versus 1 - Pandit Ram S/o Kadamlal Aged About 45 Years R/o Village And Post - Temar Tahsil Sakti, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramnarayan, S/o Kadamlal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village And Post - Temar Tahsil Sakti, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - (Deleted ) Badra Bai ( Dead ) Through Lrs., As Per Court Order Dt. 23-01-2020., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3.1 - (A) Rajendra Kumar Patel S/o Mannu Ram Patel, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village - Pali (Naila ) Post - Seoni, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For appellant (s) : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate in F.A. 83/2010, None appeared in F.A. No. 64/2010. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 10.11.2025 1. The present two appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.02.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sakti, in Civil Suit No. 7-A/2006 , whereby the Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff Teeja Bai has been partly allowed and a decree has been passed in favour of the plaintiff Teeja Bai with respect to the title of the suit house shown in Schedule A of the plaintiff and she was held entitled for vacant possession of suit house from the defendant. 3 The first appeal No. 64/2010 is filed by the defendants whereas the FA No. 83/2010 has been filed by the plaintiff. Since, both these appeals are arising out of the common judgment and common civil suit, these appeals are being heard and decided together. 2. The status of the parties, for the sake of convenieance are being taken as per their status shown in the civil suit. 3. The plaintiff Teeja Bai has filed a civil suit for declaration to title, permanent injunction and vacant possession of the suit property shown in paragraph 2 of the plaint as well as suit house shown in the Schedule A annexed with the plaint. It is pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint that the plaintiff was the member of joint hindu family along with her husband and her father in law. The suit properties are her ancestral property which was situated at Village- Temar. The suit house of Schedule-A was situated at Khasra No. 1862 and 1861 at Village Temar, Tahsil- Sakti, Dist- Janjgir Champa. As per the law of inheritance, the plaintiff is having half share over the suit property along with her husband Chunnu Lal in one share and her father in law Dilchand in one share. The suit property was never partitioned between them. Her husband Chunnu Lal has died in 1990 and then she acquired right and title over half share of suit property. Dilchand has also died on 07.09.2005 and the plaintiff is the sole legal heir of Dilchand through her husband Chunnu Lal and thus, she was the sole possession holder of the suit property owned by the Dilchand. The defendant No. 3 is not the wife of Chunnu Lal and defendant No. 1 to 3 are not the legal heirs of Dilchand yet they have got mutated in their names in revenue records and possessed the suit property. Therefore, 4 the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of title and vacant possession of suit property. 4. The defendant No. 1 to 3 have filed their written statement jointly, denied the plaint averment and pleaded that the defendant No. 3 Badra Bai is the widow of Chunnu Lal and not the plaintiff Teeja Bai. After death of Dilchand and Chunnu Lal, the defendants have performed their last rights. The suit property shown in part 2 of the plaint was the self acquired property of Dilchand which he has purchased through registered sale deed. During his life time Dilchand has sold the suit property on 07.06.1993 to the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 through registered sale deed and then, they got their name mutated in the revenue records and came into possession of the same. The plaintiff has no right or title over the suit property of either Dilchand or Chunnu Lal. They have also pleaded that Dilchand, during his life time, has sold his land of Village- Benderkona and out of the sale consideration, he constructed a house and gifted it for school purposes in which new multi purpose govt. higher secondary school is running. Dilchand had never gone to Village- Benderkona for cultivation and there is no question for his earning from ancestral property and purchasing the property of Village Temar. Dilchand was in government service and has purchased the property from his own income and during his life time, he sold his property to the defendant No. 3 and now the defendant No. 3 become title and possession holder of the suit property. The plaintiff was never resided with Chunnu Lal and only to claim partition and right and title over the suit property, she is raising claim that she is the wife of the Chunnu lal and inherited his property. Since, the plaintiff was never resided with Chunnu Lal, 5 she cannot claim title over the suit property and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. Based on the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court has framed the following issues:- 1- D;k fodz; i= fnukad 7&6&93 dk dksbZ izfrQy vnk ugha fd, tkus rFkk fn[kkoVh gksus ds dkj.k mlls izfroknhx.k dks okn Hkwfe ij dksbZ LoRo izkIr ugha gksrk gSA 2- D;k okfnuh okn xzkLr Hkwfe rFkk edku dk ,d ek= LoRokf/kdkjh gSA 3- D;k okfnuh izfroknhx.k ls okn Hkwfe ,oa edku dk dCtk izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS \ 4- D;k okfnuh izfroknhx.k ls okn Hkwfe rFkk edku dk e/;orhZ ykHk izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gSA 5- D;k okn vof/k esa gS \ 6- lgk;rk ,oa O;; vfrfjDr okn iz’u 7- D;k okn csukeh laO;ogkj vf/kfu;e ds v/khu ckf/kr gS \;fn gS rksa izHkko 6. The plaintiff has examined herself as PW-1, Komal Prasad PW-2 and they are relied upon the documents Ex.P/1 Kishtbandi of the year 1991-92 which was recorded in the name of Dilchand, Ex.P/2 is the copy of record of right which was recorded in the name of Ghasiya and Ex.P/3 which was the copy of record of right of the year 1954-55. The defendants have examined Bardabai DW-1, and defendant No.4 witness Bhojram DW-2 and defendants have relied upon the documents Ex.D/1, which was a copy of the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. lodged by Teeja Bai. Ex.D/1-A to Ex.D/-17 are the sale deeds, Ex.D/18 to Ex.D/20 are the copies of the revenue records and Ex.D/21 and Ex.D/22 are the certificates and Ex.D/23 is the copy of Rinpustika which is in the name of Pandit Ram. 7. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the paries, the learned trial Court comes into conclusion that the plaintiff 6 has failed to prove that the sale deed dated 07.06.1993 is a fictitious sale deed and she also failed to prove that the sale transaction is Benami transaction and the suit is not barred under the Benami Transaction Prohibition Act. It has also been held by the learned trial Court that the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession only with respect to the suit house of Schedule-A. The said judgment and decree is under challenged in the present first appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the suit properties were purchased by Dilchand from his own income and get his name mutated in the revenue records and sold the suit lands to the defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 through registered sale deed dated 07.06.1993. The plaintiff Teeja Bai left her husband Chunnu Lal and then Chunnu Lal married with defendant No.3 Badra Bai and after death of Chunnu Lal, the defendant No.3 was resided with father-in- law Dilchand and after death of Dilchand, she inherited the property of Dilchand. Learned trial Court has considered the defendant No.3 Badra Bai as the second wife of Chunnu Lal and the plaintiff is possession holder of the suit house and she being the first wife of Chunnu Lal and legal heirs of his property, passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit house shown in schedule -A of the plaint. He would submits that when the plaintiff left the company of Chunnu Lal and went somewhere else, her title over the suit property was extinguished and the defendant No.3 being the wife of Chunnu Lal should have inherited the property of Chunnu Lal and the plaintiff is not entitled for the said decree for possession of the suit house, yet the decree has been passed by the learned trial Court. He would also submits that Dilchand was not competent to alienate the suit property 7 alone in favour of the defendants No. 1 to 3 and she has also right over the property through her husband Chunnu Lal. Without any legal necessity Dilchand sold the suit property to defendants No.1 to 3 which is the fictitious sale and no title has been transferred in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3. During the life time of the first wife that is the plaintiff, the defendant No. 3 is claiming to be the second wife of Chunnu lal and she is not the legal heir of either Chuunu Lal or Dilchand. 9. No one appears in FA No. 64/2010 on behalf of the appellant. No one appears on behalf of the respondents also in FA No. 83/2010 despite service of notice, however, it transpires from both these appeals that the respondent No. 1 of FA No. 64/2010 is the appellant in FA No. 83/2010, and the respondents No. 1 to 3 of FA No. 83/2010 are the appellants in FA No. 64/2010. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants in FA No. 83/2010 and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 11. The points for determination in the present appeal would be whether the plaintiff Teeja Bai has proved her title over the suit property and whether she is entitled for relief claimed in the plaint or not. With respect to the title of the plaintiff and claim of possession, the learned trial Court has framed the issue no. 2 and 3. 12. In the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded that her ancestors have taken partitioned of their ancestral property from Village- Bichhiya and came to Village- Benderkona in the year 1954-55. Her father in law Dilchand has obtained 1.96 Acre land. Her father in law has executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 Pandit Ram on 06.06.1991. She stated in her evidence that she married with 8 Jhabbulal, S/o Dilchand since 17-18 years back. Her father in law has purchased a land in Village- Temar. Since the property purchased by her father in law was purchased from the income of ancestral property, her husband was having half share from his birth on the property of Dilchand and after death of her husband, she inherited the share of her husband and after death of Dilchand, she became the absolute owner of the entire property of Dilchand. The sale deed dated 07.06.1993 is nominal sale deed which has been executed without any consideration. The defendant No. 3 Badra Bai has never married with Chuunnu Lal @ Jhabbu Lal and she has no right over the suit property. In cross-examination, she admitted that in the month of February, 1978, she served a legal notice to her husband Jhabbu Lal @ Chunnu Lal. She denied that her husband has married with Badra Bai in the year 1978. From her detailed cross-examination, the defendants are not able to disturb her status of the first wife of Jhabbu Lal @ Chhunnu Lal. She is the married wife of Jhabbu Lal. Although, she denied the marriage of defendant No. 3 with Chunnu Lal, however, even if it is considered that defendant No. 3 has married with Chunnu Lal, she has no right over the property of Chunnu Lal being the second wife as it has been established in the case that the plaintiff Teeja Bai is the first wife of the Chunnu Lal. Further the evidence come on record that Chunnu Lal has died in the year 1990 and after his death, Dilchand has sold the property of Village- Benderkona to Pandit Ram on 06.06.1991. Since, the property was ancestral property and Dilchand can alienate only half share of suit property but in view of the claim of the plaintiff that she has not claimed over the property of Village- Benderkona, the right and title with respect to the property of 9 Village- Benderkona cannot be determined. The present is the suit with respect to suit property of Village- Temar. The plaintiff could not establish that the property of Village- Temar was purchased from the income of ancestral property or after selling the property of Village- Benderkona. From the sale-deeds of Ex- D/1 to D/15, it also transpires that before selling the properties of Village- Benderkona, the suit property of Village- Temar was already purchased and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff that the suit property of Village- Temar was purchased out of the sale consideration of ancestral property is negated. The evidence also come on record that Dilchand was a government teacher and he purchased the suit property of Village- Temar from his own income and it was his self acquired property and if he sold the suit lands of Village- Temar to the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 on 07.06.1993, the plaintiff cannot raise objection in that alienation which has been made by Dilchand and the plaintiff cannot claim any right or title over the property of Dilchand which is his self acquired property and he alienated the same during his life time. 13. With respect to the suit house shown in Schedule-A in the plaint, the learned trial Court has considered that the defendant No. 3 is residing with Chunnu Lal and at that time, the first wife of Chunnu Lal i.e. plaintiff was already alive, the plaintiff was held entitled for vacant possession of suit house as the legal heir of her husband Chunnu Lal @ Jhabbu Lal. The defendant No. 3 Badra Bai has also admitted in Para 13 of her cross-examination that she was well within the knowledge that the plaintiff is daughter in law of Dilchand and she is alive. The learned trial Court has considered that the suit house was ancestral property of Chunnu Lal as well as Dilchand and passed the 10 decree in favour of the plaintiff that she inherited the property of Dilchand and entitled for possession of the suit house. The judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court does not suffers with any perversity or illegality, further the learned trial Court has also considered that since, the suit land of Village-Temar was held to be self acquired of Dilchand and he sold it to the defendant No. 1 to 3 and the sale was rightful of the property in favour of the defendants No. 1 to 3, which cannot be said that it was a fixatious sale or the suit is barred by Benami Transaction Act. 14. Accordingly, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. Both the first appeals, filed by the respective appellants are hereby dismissed. 15. The parties shall bear their own cost. 16. The appellate decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika