DASHODA Vs. SEMKUWAR W/O BECHAN SINGH
LAWS(CHH)-2020-1-40
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH (FROM: BILASPUR)
Decided on January 08,2020

Dashoda Appellant
VERSUS
Semkuwar W/O Bechan Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SANJAY K.AGRAWAL,J. - (1.)Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law in this second appeal preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs under Section 100 of the CPC assailing the impugned judgment and decree by which the first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.
(2.)Mr. S.D. Rajas, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that first appellate Court has clearly erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that the sale deeds (Ex. P/3 to P/6) in favour of Baishakhu i.e. plaintiffs' predecessor in title have already been declared null and void by the S.D.O in 170 (b) proceedings of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code initiated by the defendants which was ultimately set aside by the Additional Collector vide Ex. P/1. He would further submit that the first appellate Court has allowed the documents Ex. D/13 and D/14 without giving an opportunity to the plaintiffs to rebut them by adducing evidence in rebuttal, as such, the appeal deserves to be admitted by formulating substantial questions of law in these regard.
(3.)It is the case of the plaintiffs that their predecessor-­in-­title Baishakhu purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed (Ex. P/6) and thereby, came into possession of the said suit property. After a long time, proceeding under Section 170 (b) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code was initiated by the defendants wherein by order dated 22/07/1994, the S.D.O. declared the said transaction (Ex. P/3 and P/6) as null and void which was assailed by the plaintiffs in an appeal before the Additional Collector, who vide its order dated 22/01/1996 (Ex. P/1) set aside the order passed by the S.D.O. and thus, the said order passed by the S.D.O. was not challenged by the plaintiffs before the civil Court while filing of the suit and only simple declaration of title was sought by them which was granted by the trial Court, but reversed by the first appellate Court in the appeal preferred by the defendants on the ground that the sale deeds (Ex. P/3 and P/6) have been declared null and void by the S.D.O. under Section 170 (b) of the Land Revenue Code which was set aside by the Additional Collector, but the order of the S.D.O. has been upheld by the Commissioner vide order dated 26/08/1997 in revision preferred by the defendants and the order passed by the Commissioner was not challenged by the plaintiffs before the trial Court, therefore, the order of the S.D.O. declaring the transaction (Ex. P/3 and P/6) as null and void has become final.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.