EMMANUEL TIGGA S/O PIOUS ORAON Vs. JOVAKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the Plaintiff's Second Appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge (FTC), District Jashpur in Civil Appeal No.3-A/2015 by which, the lower appellate Court, while affirming the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Jashpur in Civil Suit No.2- A/2013, has dismissed the Plaintiff's suit.

(2.) The undisputed facts of the case are that the Plaintiff-Emmanuel Tigga instituted a suit claiming declaration of title, injunction and also praying that the orders passed by the revenue authorities be declared as null and void on the ground that the suit property described in Plaint Schedule-A was purchased by Pankhrasius Toppo and Samuel Barla by virtue of the registered deed of sale dated 2.4.1969 from Cheema and Soma for a consideration of Rs.300/-. It is pleaded further that the said purchasers have executed the deed of Will in his favour on 7.7.1984 by bequeathing the suit property in his favour. It is pleaded further that the proceeding which was initiated under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the code of 1959') by the revenue authorities is apparently contrary to law as neither any notice was issued to him nor the said provision is attracted as the original transaction was made between the scheduled tribes. It is pleaded further that since the revenue authorities have passed the order on 23.11.2009 under Section 170B of the Code of 1959 by holding that the alleged transaction was a fraudulent one and therefore, the Plaintiff has been constrained to file the suit in the instant nature.

(3.) The Defendants were proceeded ex parte. The trial Court, after considering the evidence of the Plaintiff, has come to the conclusion that since the Plaintiff has not entered into the witness box nor has established his claim, therefore, it cannot be held that the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit property as alleged by him. It held further by examining the attesting witness namely John Ekka that the alleged Will dated 7.7.1984 (Ex.P-5) cannot be upheld as the same was not proved by him as per the provisions prescribed under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short 'the Act of 1925'). As a consequence, the trial Court has dismissed the Plaintiff's claim.