Ramashankar Prasad vs Dharmsai

The proceedings of this matter have been taken up through Video Conferencing.

Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs.

By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs vide judgment and

decree dated 17.10.2012 passed by the learned Third Upper District Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.16A/2012 affirming

the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 21.02.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge ClassÂI, Sarguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) in Civil Suit

No.28Â​ A/2009, whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs.

Mr. Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, would submit that both the Courts below have concurrently erred in holding that the suit

land shown in ScheduleÂA of the plaint is the self acquired property of Budhram, the father of defendant Nos.1A & 1B, and was not purchased from

the money of his father Timbu Ram by recording a finding perverse to the record and further erred in holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled for

1/4th  1/4th share in the suit property shown in ScheduleÂA, B & C. As such, the appeal involves substantial question of law for determination and

deserves to be admitted for hearing.

I  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the appellants/plaintiffs, considered his submissions made hereinÂabove and also went through the

records with utmost circumspection.

Timbu Ram had four sons namely Budhram, Ramashankar, Bhukha and Satyanarayan. The plaintiffs and the defendant No.2 are the sons of Timbu

Ram, whereas defendant Nos.1A and 1B are the sons of Budhram and grand sons of Timbu Ram. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and

permanent injunction claiming that the suit property mentioned in the scheduleÂA of the plaint was purchased by Budhram from the money of their

father Timbu Ram and the property shown in the ScheduleÂA, B & C was partitioned during the lifetime of Timbu Ram, therefore, the plaintiffs are

entitled for 1/4thÂ1/4th share in the property, in which the defendants filed their written statement interÂalia stating that the suit land is the self

acquired property of Budhram and was not partitioned during the life time of Timbu Ram, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for decree.

The Trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record dismissed the suit holding that the suit property shown in

ScheduleÂA was settled in favour of Budhram, the father of defendant Nos.1A & 1B, by the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Land Reforms) and

as such it is manwar land vide ExÂD/1 & D/2, therefore, it is not established that it was purchased by Timbu Ram and accordingly held that the

property mentioned in ScheduleÂA is the self acquired property of Budhram. Likewise, the Trial Court has also recorded a finding that the application

filed by the plaintiffs for mutation of their name in the revenue record before the Nayab Tahasildar, Shankargarh was allowed and ex parte order

dated 25.02.1999 in Revenue Case No.41ÂAÂ6A/98Â99 was passed and their names were mutated in the revenue record without notice to the

defendant No.1 and when the appeal was preferred by the defendant No.1 before the SDO, District Sarguja, the SDO vide order dated 22.03.2003 in

Revenue Case No.67/AÂ6A/2001Â02 set aside the order of Tahsildar and the name of Budhram, the father of defendant Nos.1A & 1B, was

mutated in the revenue record in place of plaintiffs. As such, it is not proved that by oral partition during the life time of Timbu Ram, each of them

(sons of Timbu Ram) got 1/4thÂ1/4th share in the schedule property mentioned in ScheduleÂA, B & C, which has also been affirmed by the First

Appellate Court.

The concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts below holding that the property mentioned in the ScheduleÂA is the self acquired property of

Budhram, the father of defendant Nos.1A & 1B, and the plaintiffs are not entitled for 1/4thÂ1/4th share in the property mentioned in ScheduleÂA, B

& C is a pure and simple finding of fact based on the material available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record.

I do not find any substantial question of law for determination in this second appeal. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine without

notice to the other side. No order as to cost (s).