Chattisgarh High Court
Ramgovind vs Smt. Lalit on 5 May, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
RAMESH
2025:CGHC:20414
KUMAR VATTI
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 : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3 : 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.
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
