SANTOSH KUMAR MISHRA Vs. ANIL KUMAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff - Santosh Kumar Mishra under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dtd. 20/4/2018 passed by the District Judge, Bemetara (C.G.) in Civil Appeal No.18-A/2017, whereby, the learned appellate Court, while affirming the judgment and decree dtd. 20/7/2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-2, Saja in Civil Suit No.7-A/2015, has dismissed the appeal. The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their descriptions before the Courts below.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit claiming partition and injunction with regard to the property in question bearing Khasra No.163, 147, 145 and 160 admeasuring 0.76 hectare, 0.34 hectare, 0.85 hectare and 0.33 hectare, respectively, total admeasuring 2.28 hectare as described in plaint Schedule -'C' by submitting, inter alia, that the property in question, which was held by his father Radheshyam along with others were the ancestral properties and in 1998, an oral partition was effected by him, whereby the suit property has fallen in his share. It is pleaded that though an oral partition was made as such, but the revenue papers are still shown to be recorded in their joint names and that after the death of father Radheshyam on 18/2/2010, the Namantaran Panji was recorded in the name of plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 4 and while taking undue advantage of it, a proceeding was initiated by defendants No. 1 to 4 for partition under Sec. 178 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, the Code of 1959) before the Tehsildar, Saja, where the said authority has passed the order of partition on 24/11/2014 in Revenue Case No.22-A/27/2013-14, which was reversed by the Collector vide its order dtd. 28/11/2014 in Case No. 6-A/27/2014-15. It is pleaded further that since the dispute with regard to question of title arose before the Revenue Authorities, therefore, he has been constrained to institute the suit in the instant nature.

(3.) While denying specifically the factum of oral partition as claimed by the plaintiff, it was pleaded by the defendants that the property in question was the ancestral property and after the death of their father Radheshyam, it was recorded in their joint names. The claim as made is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.