KALYAN SINGH Vs. SARITA MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Record of the case would demonstrate that the learned trial Court has decided the Civil Suit No. 84A/2000 and 85A/2000 by consolidating both the suits on 14/12/1994 and by common Judgment and decree dtd. 30/12/2003 decided both the suits . Common Judgment and decree were challenged in separate First Appeals before District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 1A/2004 in case of Kalyan Singh Vs. Sarita Mishra and others (decided on 30/7/2005) and in Civil Appeal No. 18A/2004 in case of Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Sarita Devi (decided on 16/12/2004), the Second Appeals have been filed before this Court being registered as Second Appeal No. 387/2005 and 59/2005. Considering the fact that the trial Court has consolidated the suits and decided by common judgment and decree this Court has directed for deciding both the appeals analogously vide its order dtd. 28/11/2005 in Second Appeal No. 387/2005, therefore, both these appeals are being decided by this common order.

(2.) Second Appeal No. 387/2005 is being filed by the appellants/defendants under Sec. 100 of the C.P.C. against judgment and decree dtd. 30/7/2005 passed by learned Third Additional District Judge, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 1A/2004 in case of Kalyan Singh Vs. Sarita Mishra and others dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants /tenant against the judgment and decree dtd. 30/12/2003 passed by Fifth Civil Judge Raipur in Civil Suit No. 85/2000. Second Appeal No. 59/2005 is being filed by the plaintiffs Sec. 100 of the C.P.C. against judgment and decree dtd. 30/7/2005 passed by learned Thirteenth Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No. 18A/2004 in case of Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Sarita Devi, by which the learned Thirteenth Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) has allowed the appeal filed by the defendants/ teanant -Smt. Tara Devi and others and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.

(3.) Second Appeal No. 387/2005 has been admitted by this Court on 24/12/2019 on following substantial question of law:-